The downward salary slope for game artists [Gamasutra article]
polycounter lvl 10
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/190895/
Just randomly saw this. This was dated two months before the Examiner's "developers make too much" piece. Don't know if this was mentioned in any threads before.
Gamasutra article used 2012 Gamedev mag data while the Examiner used 2011's. There's actually a dip n the survey average for 2012.
For the new guys, Gamasutra's highly regarded for it's gamedev journalism. Probably just as old as Polycount.
More insights in the commentaries.
Just randomly saw this. This was dated two months before the Examiner's "developers make too much" piece. Don't know if this was mentioned in any threads before.
Gamasutra article used 2012 Gamedev mag data while the Examiner used 2011's. There's actually a dip n the survey average for 2012.
For the new guys, Gamasutra's highly regarded for it's gamedev journalism. Probably just as old as Polycount.
More insights in the commentaries.
It's tempting to blame the decline on the recession, but the trend is actually consistent across the whole decade. The biggest dip doesn't appear in 2009 or 2010 (as you might expect if the recession were to blame); it's actually in 2003. Moreover, that trend line goes back even further. Most veterans of the premillennial days (your humble columnist included) can tell you that the market for CG artists was a lot hotter back in the closing years of the 20th century.
I started in games in 1995, and my starting salary back in those distant days works out to just over $77,000 in today's dollars. The Game Developer survey puts today's starting salary's average at around $45,000. That's a decline of over 45% in real terms over the last couple of decades.
Replies
tru tru
I knew the situation was bad before I even went to school.
The story is "more complex" than that. By 1972 several developments were at work. We went off the gold standard, there was the Arab Oil Embargo (the speed limit across the nation was reduced to 55 MPH), gas prices and inflation rose, etc. More women had to enter the work force (not because of "Women's Liberation" so much, but because of the need to overcome inflation and other soaring costs). The "Great Society" of LBJ (let's have "guns and butter" [reference to the cost of the Vietnam War and social programs] increased the national debt.
The U.S. auto and steel industries were being hit hard by overseas competition and infrastructural changes in industry (robotics, nascent technology that started replacing workers in factory jobs). The global economic changes because of new communications technology and computer technology also slowly started to influence the economy. Taxes started to rise probably out of necessity to pay for programs and government bureaucratic growth (increasing public expectations of the government to "solve problems."). Government growth, inflation, the end of cheap fuel, and many other factors combined to cause the dip in the chart. Also, keep in mind that most people, even into the early 1970s, did not have central air conditioners in their homes, most automobiles did not come standard with air conditioning and other "features" deemed "essential" today. There was more bureaucractic-related "indirect taxation" (government inspectors for various industries, OSHA, etc.).
The U.S. started to use more electricity (for air conditioners, electronic devices such as video tape recorders, PCs, clothes driers (many people still hung laundry out and did not use driers as much), etc.). Households used to have "one car," but by the late 70s people needed two cars (and eventually even their kids needed cars)--increasing highway building and repair, more gas use, etc. There is more to the story--but many factors, including rising cost of living due to all the new "time-saving" appliances (and cost to operate) and and other things along with inflation caused that dip (including increasing costs of education and other services). Military pay increased rapidly in the 1980s and government offices were computerizing (electric bills went crazy . . .).
To quote some random guy from the other thread:
"Because I'm passionate about, and enjoy my job - I should be paid less?".
No thanks, broski. And you can bet your ass that guy preparing taxes for a living isn't doing mandatory unpaid overtime.
He (nor I) was suggesting what you're implying. Just being grateful for our awesome jobs...
No bias whatsoever. I stated historical facts that can be confirmed. I mentioned no facts about pay discrepancies between rich and poor, just developments that were related to inflation and income not keeping pace with productivity. Perhaps your bias is showing through? My guess is that you are quite young and are not aware of history.
Unless you are old enough to have personally remembered even some of these events (which I doubt very much), your entire post comes across as the kind of Wikipedia-based armchair economics that has everyone convinced they're an expert, like the guy yelling over the fence in my backyard who thinks he has the secret to fixing the entire nation's economy.
Regardless, the history behind any of this (whether you're right or wrong, because personally, I don't know) doesn't change the fact that even since 2007, worker productivity in the U.S. has increased by almost a quarter, while the poverty rate has remained at embarrassing levels.
Do we really need a pedantic history lesson, when what everyone should be mad about is how much we have to work (in any sector / industry) versus what we're paid, and how much it costs to live these days?
Barbarian you replied to Fomori: He stated.
I said.
Your reply above? "I mentioned no facts about pay discrepancies between rich and poor."
Your right. You didn't. But that was part of Fomoris original statement. You only gave facts of why production versus pay has changed. NOT why rich vs poor has.
And yes, your bias did show with the facts you choose and your wording. Such as "bureaucractic-related "indirect taxation" (government inspectors for various industries, OSHA, etc.). " At least you could have enough intellectual honesty admitting such.
Also, I find people who use the age card as the end all reply to brush people aside as..... annoying. Lets just say, I was around. :P
Indirect taxation relates to costs that people must pay (such as government paid meat inspectors and other similar types of indirect costs). Another good example of indirect taxation is having businesses pay people to track state sales taxes imposed by state legislatures. An accountant has to be paid (for most businesses) and the sales tax goes directly to the state treasury. Thus that cost of the salary is covered by increased cost of goods and services (an indirect tax). Direct taxation includes income and sales taxes. If you buy a pound of hamburger, included in the price are costs for meat inspection (and most people are not really aware of this fact). Thus the use of "indirect taxation."
Bureaucratic-related is a factual statement without bias (reading any bias into this statement is on your side). Government bureaucracy has undeniably grown since 1972 (new departments, larger departments). Such costs are indeed bureaucratic-related. Again--fact without bias. Your claim of intellectual dishonesty is illogical. Perhaps I should play the education and experience cards as well. I am actually confused about your motives in claiming that I was biased. You could have phrased your original reply and noted any disagreement that you had with my facts. When you claimed "bias is showing" you were trying to "brush me aside" by insinuating that I was disingenuous/biased were you not? Get my point? Quid pro quo.
Also included are the benefits of meat inspection (and most people are not really aware of this fact).