Are there offline blog empires, distributing reality-television references and degrading hipsters via pneumatic pipes?
responded by posting a video of himself simulating sex with a dead fish
If that bit is true, there shouldn't be much trouble finding out.
online blog empire
My offline blog empire is administered through the USPS.
Once again, adhering to house-style gets you pwned.
degrading hipsters via pneumatic pipes?
The very medium would inhibit efficacy.
Pneuma!
Point taken, but it's not like the hipster hordes are much reduced by Gawker Media's frequent disparaging references even now.
How many blog-empires are there? I can't think of what I'd call one, although admittedly I don't get much beyond leftish politics.
Her short-lived sex partner
Did he die from some fishborne infection or something?
This seems to give away at least half the game, if it's not totally tongue-in-cheek.
There are a few. There's the Gawker empire, the -ist empire (Gothamist, etc.), TPM might be a blog empire, and Om Malik's GigaOm empire (tech business news), and some people might include TechCrunch and associated sites. And I think What Would Tyler Durden Do and With Leather and a few other sites are part of the same group. There are a few others (I'm not counting Kos because that's one site, which doesn't seem to be what people mean by "blog empire) that I'm blanking on.
The Death Star plans are NOT in the main posting area.
I can't believe we need to cobble together a definition of "blog empire" and figure out what blogs belong to such. Are there really that many videos of simulated sex with dead fish floating around?
Which reminds me: where's Apo?
Which reminds me: where's Apo?
Never mind. Sorry about that.
12: If there's a video of Roger L. Simon fucking a dead fish, that would be a bridge too far even for me.
There are more videos of real sex with dead fish than there are of simulated sex with dead fish, I would suspect.
It's barely conceivable that all relevant posts, videos, etc. could have been quickly redacted, relegating them to rumor status.
It's barely conceivable that all relevant posts, videos, etc. could have been quickly redacted, relegating them to rumor status.
This would be rather self-defeating under Nick Denton's new compensation model.
Until recently, most Gawker bloggers were paid a flat rate of $12 per post for twelve posts a day, with quarterly bonuses adding to the bottom line; these bonuses could be used to buy equity in the company, which took two years to vest. Now, Denton is moving to a pay-for-performance system. He has always tracked the page views of each individual Gawker Media writer, thinking of them like stocks in a portfolio, with whoever generates the most page views as his favorite. If each writer was only as valuable as the page views he drew, then why shouldn't Denton pay him accordingly? Until recently, most Gawker bloggers were paid a flat rate of $12 per post for twelve posts a day, with quarterly bonuses adding to the bottom line; these bonuses could be used to buy equity in the company, which took two years to vest. Now, Denton is moving to a pay-for-performance system. He has always tracked the page views of each individual Gawker Media writer, thinking of them like stocks in a portfolio, with whoever generates the most page views as his favorite. If each writer was only as valuable as the page views he drew, then why shouldn't Denton pay him accordingly?
16: Well if it's going to be that kind of party . . .
OK SPOILERS. It's Gawker, which is basically the only gossip-worthy "online blog empire" there is. The happy couple are Moe and Blakeley. The original post is still up and action takes place in the comments section. Blakeley does videos for Gawker so it stands to reason that this is about him. I can't find the dead fish video, but do I really want to? No I don't.
OK SPOILERS. It's Gawker
Crap. I was betting on a Roger Simon/LaShawn Barber hook-up.
20: Gawd, it's like high school never ends.
Oh look, I did find the video after all. Blakeley pulled it as we might have guessed, but on the Internet, information never dies. Surely the subjects of blog emperor know this.
most Gawker bloggers were paid a flat rate of $12 per post for twelve posts a day
$12/post? Cheap fucking bastards.
$144/day? I wish I made that much.
Well, obviously it sort of depends on how long a post is supposed to be. But for $12/post, it better be no more than link + one or two sentences of snarky commentary.
Anyway, on the original topic, at least the guy didn't claim that he posted the video out of concern and love, as recently happened in another blog shitstorm that I won't identify.
What, $36K a year in NYC? If you really want to make that, there are a wide variety of private sector opportunities for you.
The link in 20 leads to unending mutual bitchiness. They deserve each other, although I think he is at least somewhat wittier and funnier. (She pretty much calls in the Jezebel hordes for an endless chorus of "you're a nasty loser!"). You'd have to pay me more than $36 K a year to date anyone associated with the Gawker empire.
I did find the video after all
Oh god.
This seems like a good time to link to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
$144 a day is shit.
I know UK salaries are generally higher [at the lower end], but still, it's crappy.
27: Right, plus 12 posts/day pretty much means that a *lot* of your time is devoted to scrolling around for links and shit. Break it down on a per-hour basis, you're getting royally screwed. Idiots.
I gotta say that Mr. Dead Fish is sort of cute and funny. Too bad about the bitter whining.
Idiots.
Not necessarily, if they're doing it to break into "publishing" or "writing;" lower barrier to entry than traditional channels of getting your stuff published. The pay is nearly exploitative for the work done, but the arrangement as a whole isn't necessarily.
If their time is all spent scrolling around for links, then they don't have to live in NYC, now do they? They should move to Elgin and enjoy the life of the upper quintile.
32: They should demand more, dammit. They're making it hard for the rest of us. And I hate to tell you, but writing short link n snark entries isn't going to help you break into writing or publishing; if you want to hone your skills, blog for free and have ads, or else demand a half-decent per-post wage.
Mr. Dead Fish is sort of cute and funny
I'm not seeing either. Not that my opinion on it matters.
I admit to total ignorance about how much advertising money a popular blog can bring in. I would, though, be surprised if Gawker brings in $12 a post for every post on every blog they run. Am I off by an order of magnitude here?
The pay is nearly exploitative for the work done,
Faithful Dem that he is, Ogged comes out for raising the min. wage again. It's not a great salary, but it seems like a much better job than working retail for just above min. wage. Or, you know, two posts down. And I think Staff Ass't jobs pay less, no?
37: No, really, it's too bad. Else I'd have won the Pulitzer by now.
And I hate to tell you, but writing short link n snark entries isn't going to help you break into writing or publishing
I'm not sure you're right. People seem to continually jump from Gawker to NY Mag. or some similar.
Sweetie, if you want to call me a liar repeatedly, you have my number.
41 to 39. Although "big dummy" has generally been reserved for B.
B, I meant that you were lying about hating to tell me, not what you were telling me.
People seem to continually jump from Gawker to NY Mag. or some similar.
That's what I thought.
41: I disagree with "exploitive," still. And calling me fat doesn't advance the argument.
45: The "you" wasn't personal, hon.
I rather doubt that any Gawker-NYMag connection is coincidence, not cause and effect. Aspiring writers take those crappy $12/post jobs because they can do them in their spare time while they're writing other things, maybe, but that doesn't mean that they're not seriously undervaluing their work.
What an embarrassing post. The kind of thing that makes you hope it's all a misconceived publicity effort.
People seem to continually jump from Gawker to NY Mag. or some similar.
And vice versa.
Also, note that $12/post was the old pay scale. They now get paid based on pageviews.
Also, back when I was looking for jobs in publishing (which, btw, are basically impossible to get) most job listings didn't give salaries, but for those that did they were considerably less than $36K/year.
Is the writing from the quoted passage in 18 absolutely horrendous or is it just me?
The point is, you can't judge writing salaries on a "per year" basis. You have to think of it as either piecework or hourly wage.
Also, back when I was looking for jobs in publishing (which, btw, are basically impossible to get) most job listings didn't give salaries, but for those that did they were considerably less than $36K/year.
That was my understanding as well.
52: Fair enough; the jobs I was looking for weren't writing jobs.
Jesus, what perfectly loathsome people.
Which is to say that people who write for Gawker are in a rather different segment of the publishing industry than the one I was trying to break into. I do think piecework isn't quite the right way to look at this, though; Gawker editors are paid by the post (though now in a more complicated way than a straight $12 for each) but they have posting quotas and if they don't meet them they get fired. In that way they're more like hourly workers than, say, freelancers, even though they don't get an hourly wage per se.
1 followed by 2 is an uncanny bit of pwnage.
B.PhD:
You think Gawker editors are seriously undervaluing their work? Here's a fun game: which bloggers deserve more money for their work? and which bloggers deserve less money for their work? define "deserve" any way you like.
I don't read many blogs, but Bob Somerby is the only one I know that deserves to be paid (he chooses not to place ads on his site). I can think of many (thousands even) who deserves to be paid less.
In that way they're more like hourly workers than, say, freelancers,
They're like hourly workers if they're elligible for benefits. If it's just cash, with no benefits, than they're essentially contractors.
I think they do get benefits, but I'm not sure. It might say in the article linked in 18.
which bloggers deserve more money for their work? and which bloggers deserve less money for their work? define "deserve" any way you like.
1: Me.
2: All of Pajamas Media.
3: "Deserve" = "do people enjoy reading the content? Then it's marketable."
35: i don't know. many of the gawker empire folks have gone on to good things after their slave stint at the web sites. vanity fair, a couple to nymag.com, radar online, starting their own blog empires (curbed, etc)...it's less about the pay and more about the exposure and its position as a good launching platform. kill yourself for a year at gawker, go on to better things. ok, on preview i see SCMT mention that already, but anyways.
59: I'd be willing to bet they're contractors, and contracting your writing for $12/pop is dumb.
Have you ever read Gawker, B? The posts are very short.
My offline blog empire is administered through the USPS.
Cool, a zine! Where should I send my SASE?
64: I assume they're short, yeah. Still. I make $40/post on my paid gig, and I fully intend to get them to up me to $50 sometime early next year.
Of course they also hassle me if the posts are only a paragraph or two long, but since they refuse to provide an actual required word count, I tend mostly to ignore that.
Where should I send my SASE?
If you love reason, egoism, and capitalism, to the Ayn Rand Institute, of course.
My response to an industry in which jobs are under $36K a year is to say, 'fuck that for a game of soldiers'.
UK academic jobs are shittily paid compared to professions which require a similar level of education. Nevertheless, the starting salary for those jobs [entry level jobs, mind] is more like $50K.
I actually have no idea if Denton is exploiting his workers; he may well be. I don't know how much professional bloggers usually make or what kind of lifestyle $36K/year buys you in New York. I'm just here to clear up possible misconceptions.
My response to an industry in which jobs are under $36K a year is to say, 'fuck that for a game of soldiers'.
Any jobs?
ttaM, the exchange rate differentials between the U.S. and Britain screw everything up. Cost of living is much lower in the U.S. NYC isn't cheaper than the provinces in England, but it is still significantly cheaper than London.
69 is right on both counts.
Academic jobs most places are low paid compared to other professions with a similar level of education (not that there are many), but you can hardly cry poverty in most cases. And presumeably you enjoy some of the benefits, and consider the tradeoff a good one. This assuming an actual acadmic career, not the (oft lamented here) issues around breaking in.
re: 72
Any jobs that require a significant level of education and are hard to break into, yeah.
re: 71
Yeah, I realize that's true. Still, I'm sometime shocked at the sorts of salaries people discuss here. Even allowing for cost of living and exchange rate issues, they are still low.
Any jobs that require a significant level of education and are hard to break into, yeah.
Guess that doesn't include my job, then.
re: 75
You're missing my point. I've worked in lots of jobs that pay less than that.
I'm not denigrating low-paid jobs in general or the people that do them; except in the sense that I think that, for lots of them, the people who do them deserve to be paid more and that if you are going to have significant barriers to entry then people should be properly compensated.
I don't dispute your general point, but for much of the US $36K seems like a ridiculously high cutoff point.
re: 77
Well, perhaps that's a difference between here and there, then. $36K isn't an amazingly low salary here either. It's certainly above the minimum wage level. But it would be well below the median wage.
77: Given that the median HHI income in the US in 2006 was apparently $48,000, that seems fair.
My response to an industry in which jobs are under $36K a year is to say, 'fuck that for a game of soldiers'.
Amen and hallelujah. The argument that in a lot of places in the US $36 would be a lot of money doesn't matter to me; in most of those places, a lot of people are shit-ass poor, and they ought not to be.
Power to the people! No one should be alienated from his job or the twice daily Starbucks habit!
81: Honest to god, Tim, do the math. We aren't talking twice daily starbucks habits here. We're talking mortgage or rent + car payment + gas + utilities + groceries + insurance + health care. I made about $48k for three years and supported a family of three on it, and you're damn right I was crying poverty when I had to ask my in-laws to buy PK's winter clothes for him because we couldn't afford to. And that's with no daycare costs, no health care costs, and racking up about $10k on the credit card over that three-year span (which is how I managed to travel and thereby maintain my professional life).
NB: Guardian article on UK incomes from 2003: . If you lined up households rather than individuals, the median would be £21,700 - still well below the higher rate threshold. That's about 44K US.
82: I don't doubt that. I don't know how HHI is calculated. I imagine it's true that they include people living in what even the govt. defines as poverty or near-poverty. I seem to recall that people tend to treat 60-70K as the break-even point for households. But there's something weird and discomfiting about treating as penury an income that's greater than that of--at a guess--half the country, esp. at a time when those people, according to survey evidence, think they personally are doing OK. I don't know what's weird and discomfiting about it, but there it is.
83 was me.
84: I was reading all that as it relates to `careers' that require significant training and effort to get into. Lots of poeple have low paying jobs, and there is downward pressure on a lot of them.
To talk sensibly about that though, you have to factor in a lot of other things than just salary. Working a couple years in a crappy service industry job at 18 is really not the same thing as making a career of it. Similarly, some reasonably well paying industries have very low paying entry paths, but that might be acceptable for a few years. Etc. etc. etc.
3: "Deserve" = "do people enjoy reading the content? Then it's marketable."
Okay, now I'm waiting for the first commenter here to demand a raise.
86: All the commenters automatically get 8% at the 1st of the year.
$36k US looks pretty crap but not appallingly so, given that if I was running one of those blogs I'd be doing a bunch of freelance work on the side. As far as I can see, Nick gets roughly the quality he pays for. In terms of data points, the Guardian blog is £75 sterling (roughly USD100,000 and dropping like a brick) if you're selected as an "Editor's Choice" and chuff-all if not. As far as I can see, Dave Hill makes a decent second income out of it (because Dave Hill is a bloody good writer) but nobody else.
85 is right.
Lots of us have or will work low-paid entry jobs for a relatively short period to get into a career we want. Or have worked crappy jobs when we were teenagers, or again between college degrees or whatever. I worked in crappy IT/service jobs for years and years. Fwiw, I've spent more of my adult life in total fucking poverty than in financial comfort.
However, for careers that require significant training and effort to get into [to use soup biscuits phrase], they fucking well ought to pay people properly and in some industries they don't.
88: As far as I can see, Nick gets roughly the quality he pays for.
How much does he pay for Jezebel? Because he's getting cheated.
there's something weird and discomfiting about treating as penury an income that's greater than that of--at a guess--half the country, esp. at a time when those people, according to survey evidence, think they personally are doing OK.
What's discomfiting is that we have this idea that pointing out that something sucks is complaining, and that complaining is weak and bad and whiny.
A lot of people who think they personally are doing okay are carrying massive amounts of debt. The fact that these people think that's okay doesn't mean it is, and the fact that the cost of living in America is so high that wages that are astronomical by world historical standards are not "enough" is unfair, but nonetheless a fact.
I have a real problem with using median incomes or pointing out that a lot of people have it worse in discussions about acceptable wages, because it's such a Republicanish move--like, oh, the discussion's over because someone's invoked the status quo. Yeah, so? The status quo sucks.
Geez, B, that's an incredible pay rate for your blog posts. My girlfriend works in publishing, she's an editor for a trade publication, and she assures me that the pay scales are crap across the board. Movies showing the executive editor of some magazine living in a nice apartment in NYC are to blame for countless idealistic kids thinking print can afford you a good life. She could increase her salary by about 40% just by taking an entry-level job at my firm.
That said, journalism does offer perks such as connections and prestige that exceed its salary, similar to jobs in higher education.
However, for careers that require significant training and effort to get into [to use soup biscuits phrase], they fucking well ought to pay people properly and in some industries they don't.
Wait, I thought we were talking about blogging.
That said, journalism does offer perks such as connections and prestige that exceed its salary, similar to jobs in higher education.
Does journalism have much prestige these days, even among journalists?
92: `blogging' isn't really an established career yet. If we're talking about writing though, carry on.
94: did it ever? I've never though of it as as a `prestige' job, so much as something that some people are passionate about, and some of them seem to have a lot of fun (mostly for crap pay).
Then again, I think of most very high salary jobs as being compensation for the fact that the work, or the hours, or something about it is really horrible.
cost of living in America is so high that wages that are astronomical by world historical standards are not "enough"
The real reason that our wages are not enough is because our lifestyles are also astronomical by world and historical standards. That's why our salaries are still sky-high in PPP terms (which adjusts for different price levels in goods and services across countries and regions), because we can actually buy more produced value than anyone else in history (except perhaps modern Norweigans, with their damn oil profits, lucky blond bastards).
And the reason the rest of us talk about median salaries and the such in these discussions is because they are important. They give us an idea of how much money we're talking about changing hands, which represents roughly how much we'll change the distribution of stuff (by which I mean products and services, the true source of total wealth since money don't mean shit if there's nothing to buy) and the future flow of stuff, which itself affects the future amounts of stuff available for distribution.
When you say that everyone should earn more than the current median salary, you are saying that everyone in America should be able to consume what can currently be bought for $48k a year. That's a huge redistribution with massive probable effects on future production, and it may even be near impossible. Ultimately, there's only so much stuff that humans can produce, which limits total consumption.
And remember that a lot of rich people with monsterous wages aren't spending it in a given year, but are saving it. So they probably only have annual consumption (which is all that could be redistributed to provide more consumption for lower wage individuals) in the six figures even if they have seven or eight figure salaries. Thus there's probably a lot less produce to go around than there may initially appear.
Errr... I could probably continue this, but it's huge already.
`blogging' isn't really an established career yet.
Nevertheless, it's what the people at Gawker Media do. It could probably be considered a type of writing career at this point, but with some important idiosyncrasies.
91: Too many people here find anything less than the upper-middle-class lifestyle unimaginable. $35,000 a year in NYC isn't bad for a young single person. Gawker is a stepping-stone job, too, as the delectable and not really terribly awful Ms. Cox has shown us.
94: It shows education and the likelihood of connections, and it's an upper-middle-class job despite its working-class salary. That's what I meant by prestige, even if people still sneer at journalists for not doing anything useful since Watergate.
98: Yeah, I was thinking of it as part of a `writing career', however you want to describe that.
99: As noted, depending on lots of factors other than raw salary. $35k/year isn't anywhere near an `upper middle class' lifestyle most places, but it may be a stepping stone on the way to one, sure. Particularly, as you note, if you are young and single is a different game than if you are 40 with kids.
Also, 35k/yr as entry level to a field with an average income of say 100k/yr is very, very different than 35k/yr as entry level to a field with an average of 48k/yr
I have a real problem with using median incomes or pointing out that a lot of people have it worse in discussions about acceptable wages, because it's such a Republicanish move--like, oh, the discussion's over because someone's invoked the status quo. Yeah, so? The status quo sucks.
And thus do Democrats attempt to define "middle class" as every household making less than $500,000. I don't know how to make sense of discussions that define everyone but the top .5% as not rich, or think the current way income gets spread is entirely irrelevant.
97: However, it's risible to assume that the income distribution in the US is somehow necessary or normative and leave it at that.
You have to figure out some point at which you have to say, "X is doing OK financially". For a single person on a career track writing fluff in NYC, $35,000 is good. It also would be god to separate some things from personal income as much as possible, e.g. the children's educational opportunities and everyone's access to health care.
My entry-level salary out of college as a union organizer in Los Angeles was $22k in 1997. It seemed to work all right. $36k in NYC ten years later seems decent, but only for entry level.
It would be edifying to know what Nick Denton pays himself, and what Gawker Media takes in. It's still private, I think; I've seen estimates of $1-$2M annual advertising revenue.
The status and prestige of journalists is an interesting element of how they are perceived by themselves and others. Journalists often have access to the trappings of wealth (parties, junkets, famous people) but rarely the wealth itself.
Journalists often have access to the trappings of wealth (parties, junkets, famous people)
Hook 'em woo!
but rarely the wealth itself
Oh, hell.
He meant "access to trap wealth," Smasher. Marry well.
The status of journalists is a political issue. The top, most influential journalists are high upper-middle class, and many feel that they see the world through that filter. Furthermore, the top people set the standard for everyone else, especially the ambitious young journalists. Journalists are also susceptible to subtle bribery of the country-club type, since they are repectable enough to be invited to big-time social events.
I have argued that the professionalism of journalism through J-school has actually made it worse. The really idiotic stenographic neutrality of political reporting has been strongly and sincerely defended by people in the biz as a form of professionalism which the masses are unable to understand. To the pros, to point out that a statement by the Prez is flatly untrue would be advocacy, and therefore wrong and unprofessional. A lot of the top people think that way.
That's the first plank in the master plan, Timbot.
A week from tomorrow I need to tell an assembly of Virginian students, high school through undergraduate, about what it is I do and what one has to do to break into the field. Primary concern is how to look cool; secondary is what the hell to do for the "visual aid presentation" component of the lecture, I don't even know if there's a powerpoint on this computer. After that I wonder how to be honest about how little money one stands to make over one's art-critical career without bursting into a sobbing fit.
103: I don't think anyone is saying that. Our system certainly has room for improvement, and I could digress lengthily on how to produce a fairer, more progressive, yet probably more economically efficient tax code.
But I do think that it's really unrealistic to say that everyone today should be able to consume what the current median American consumes, or else they are living a life of squalor and no security. And I think this would be borne out by some quick analysis of the current GDP and median salary numbers, along with thinking about how redistribution could be carried out and the probable effects on future production.
Also, what Emerson says.
After that I wonder how to be honest about how little money one stands to make over one's art-critical career without bursting into a sobbing fit.
Take the current salaries you would probably make if you had 1 year of experience, 2 years, and so on to the salary you'd be making if you were near retirement right now (so this includes your prime earning years at the top of the field, whoo hoo!). Multiply the numbers by an assumed wage growth of 4-5% per year of experience to get real earnings over a career. Now add up all those salaries without doing anything else to the numbers to get a true present value.
This could make a minimum wage job at Pizza Hut look good to most people. In fact, that's usually how people toy with the numbers to make earnings look as good as possible.
Thanks, PMP. Now how are you with PowerPoint?
112: Flash some gang signs at the start, so the kids know you're hard like that.
This isn't making me feel better about doing something unpaid for a few months. The hope, obviously, is that it will lead to something better than I could get today in the same or a similar field. After the few months are up, I'm pretty much going for whatever I can get, even if it's something unrelated. Time really is a luxury.
I'm imagining Armsmasher doing something like that guy in Shattered Glass, but being honest about it.
For various reasons I agreed to do this "pro bono" (I hang scare quotes on that because I know it will prove to be no sort of favor) and all the same I had to sign a lengthy contract stipulating that I would be receiving one or several disbursements for $0. Better than any visual aid I could invent.
By "doing something" I mean the scenes where Glass is addressing a group of students.
Show them that video of the self-circumcision guy. No further visual presentation required.
115: There's teacher-sex involved, isn't there? Pro-boner indeed.
Part of what makes discussion of incomes tricky, particularly for entry-level jobs when you're young, is that there's a point at which disposable income increases rapidly.
Everyone has some fixed monthly expense (that depend *a lot* on location and personal circumstances) and the difference between being able to just barely cover those expenses, and being able to cover expenses, food, and have even $150-250 a month in truly disposable income is huge.
So there's a range in which evey $1K a year makes a noticeable difference in lifestyle and then, above that ot makes less of a difference day-to-day and more of a difference in longer term goals (house, car, etc . . .).
Obviously it makes a huge difference, as well, if "young" = "young and healthy."
119: People also don't intuitively understand the opportunity cost of say, advanced degrees, or residency/internships, etc.
Yeah, the wage that's comfortable if you're single with no responsibilities is wildly different from something needed to support a family. I thought almost $30K, no benefits, in 1994-95 NY was great, given that I didn't mind living in a lousy neighborhood. Not having health care would have gotten old after a while, though.
108:
What on earth does "high upper-middle class" mean? The top, most influential journalists are upper class, and their work clearly reflects that. The major TV anchors are all paid 3-10 million dollars per year. Bureau chiefs for the Times are paid very comfortable 6 figure salaries.
122: It means that Emerson lives in a much nicer neighborhood than you do. 3 mil. is nothing to him.
I think that it's legit to define some jobs as entry-level jobs for young people -- e.g., Gawker fluff journalism. It's obnoxious, though, when retail chains pretend that their minimum-wage (often part-time) jobs are "student jobs", when the majority of their employees are older people with no future.
entry-level jobs for young people
I get kind of weird about this when the 'entry' isn't to any sort of defined career track. Maybe Gawker is, but it still seems exploitative to say that it's okay for a job to pay badly because you're young and just getting started, if it doesn't actually open doors to something that will pay better.
124: This is very, very annoying. Especially when they pull bullshit like claiming they keep the majority of their positions part-time because it's flexible for `students', when really it's to avoid benefits or whatever.
Willy: Granted.
People were saying that journalists weren't really rich, but they are. I suppose I should have put an "at least" in there. And I mostly meant print journalists rather than TV journalists.
125: What's being exploited there? A lack of information?
125: Right; well defined internships, residencies, or other training positions can make sense if they have a clear path to a `real' job, even if they pay pretty badly. Spending a few years of your life in a poorly paid crapshoot (cf academia?) is different.
Now how are you with PowerPoint?
I know of it and seek to have people who handle such filth for me.
125: Yeah, the main point is whether it leads to anything. But I did say that.
130: I think that's one of those things which can only be addressed by experience: your own, your friends', your family's, etc. Once you're in the job, people get you that information pretty quickly, I think.
The low-wage employers also fraudulently use the "entry-level job" meme to argue for a lower minimum wage and various other exemptions.
133: I don't know how clear it is sometimes. Look at the number of people who spent some time in `tech support hell' thinking of it as a path to a `real' IT job. It a vaguely possible path, but really not a good one. There is a lot of collective confusion in that industry about what they are doing and what it means., so someone just starting off would often get really starry-eyed nonsense from people who had been around a bit longer, and either were still clueless, or in denial. Less so now that so much of it is offshore, I guess.
Yeah. Something that's happened (or that I have the impression has happened) in the last 20-30 years is more, shorter jobs (this bit I'm sure of) that don't necessarily form a coherent career track. Someone who worked themself up from the mailroom to VP over forty years at GM had a defined ladder to climb, which now doesn't exist. I'm not sure how much of the knowledge of what job you need to position yourself for the next higher level job really is available to the average worker.
Something that's happened (or that I have the impression has happened) in the last 20-30 years is more, shorter jobs (this bit I'm sure of) that don't necessarily form a coherent career track.
Definitely. Navigating this is rather difficult.
136/137: This is definitely true, but probably less true as you increase the amount of needed training. Academia is an outlier here, as lots of people do all the training but end up having a bit of a patchwork career. But look at something with similar front-end commitment, like medicine. One of the things that makes the cost and time of med school + internship + residency is that there is an attending position at the end of it, for pretty much everyone. Asking people to put that kind of time and opportunity in speculatively is crazy (which is why academics do it). I guess (from an outsiders perspective) law is a bit different, but there again a) it's typically less of a front-end commitment and b) it's on a lot of different paths, not just one.
By comparison, lot's of things that used to involve a trudge up (one particular) the corporate ladder are much more freeform now.
This is definitely true, but probably less true as you increase the amount of needed training.
Yeah, it certainly seems like career paths that require graduate degrees for entry-level jobs are still pretty structured. It's the ones that have lower formal barriers to entry that are more freeform.
Law's not too different. Half the reason I went to law school was that it was reasonably guaranteed middle-class employment. I spent a while after the Peace Corps looking for entry-level writing/editing/publishing sorts of jobs, and could not figure out how, with a BA and no experience, to get on a ladder that would lead to something reasonably secure; law school was a route to employment.
I spent a while after the Peace Corps looking for entry-level writing/editing/publishing sorts of jobs, and could not figure out how, with a BA and no experience, to get on a ladder that would lead to something reasonably secure
The conclusion I came to after searching for similar jobs after graduating was that this is basically impossible without significant preexisting connections or experience.
I used to know a woman who spent her life in publishing, never rising very high, and she was almost destitute. Publishing relied on contract workers earlier than anyone, I think. Non-profits can be that way too.
140: By a bit different, I mean't from the medicine example. I know several people with law degrees who never really worked as lawyers, but whose degree still made sense. This doesn't really work in medicine. Still, I suppose they could have chosen too (maybe not all of them).
This doesn't really work in medicine.
You might be surprised. I know a couple who jumped out of medicine (and, to be fair, jumped back in later).
Really, I think this is where Gonerill jumps in and (rightly, I guess) tells us that the social circle makes the nipples stiff or some such.
people with law degrees who never really worked as lawyers, but whose degree still made sense. This doesn't really work in medicine.
1. MD
2. Swimming pool, hold the water.
3. Settlement check.
4. Fulminate.
5. Profit!!!!
144: Ah, but did they never actually work as physicians? It's not like people don't have second thoughts. My point was, I've know people who took law degrees with no intention of ever working as a lawyer. I don't know anyone who did that with medicine, although I do know peopel with MD's who aren't practicing medicine.
I know two people who started medical degrees and then switched into research orientated degrees part way through. In Scotland it's possible for medical doctors to take an 'interstitial' degree part-way through their medical degree, it adds a couple of years onto their training but gives them a non-medical degree along with their medical qualification. People typically do biochemistry, psychology, that sort of thing.
The people I know basically stayed in their 'interstitial' area. So, they did most of the academic work for a medical degree, then did another degree, but decided not to continue and take up their hospital training to become doctors.
Doctors in Scotland must be very grassy.
But unlike their American friends, the Brits probably had functioning bowels this weekend. So there's that.
re: 148
That's a British versus US usage. 'Orientated' is normal British usage..
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/oriented
In the U.S. one "orientates" oneself by taking the bearings of terrain features relative to a relief map, before running off like an idiot. I suppose you people still hire professionals to "comment" on televised football games.
I have to say I'm with Ben on orienting research. FM, we do indeed hire professionals to comment on sports, but these are the pseudo-celebs who pull ad hoc analysis out of their arses whenever the game stops (an important skill with cricket); meanwhile the commentators describe the action.
A little data on the conversation above on living wages can be found at
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/datazone_fambud_budget
New York's basic family budget for a family of four was 58k + in 2005. It's likely 60k+ now.