dedicated to those who do sound for image
Incentives ... who benefits?
For the individual who gets a job in one of the states that has an incentive program, the program clearly benefits that person at the time. The perpetuation of incentives and the "incentive war" it creates, ultimately does not benefit us at all. There is a lot to be said about this.
cross-posted from Gary Dunham's comments at the Discussion Group:
The key term is "lure". (From LA to NY) Incentives do not create jobs. Incentives move jobs. The multiplier effect (supposed tax revenue) is a highly debated issue, akin to studio book keeping. The studios are in the habit of asking for (and receiving) non-participant investors in their projects. The states are nothing more than an investor that does not share in the profits... Kind of like crew members who work under concessionary contracts.
Incentives are a lose-lose proposition for the workforce. Most incentive legislation requires hiring local crews. Although good for the workforce in the beginning... not so good after a few years. Canada is a prime example. In the late 90's the producers took almost all the crew from the US... we trained our replacements and now few if any US crew venture past the northern boarder. (Or did at the height of US production in Canada)
And now with every state in the union getting into the incentive business, the process will repeat itself. As production is moved from state to state a trained workforce will be left behind. It becomes a supply and demand issue. When the states get tired of the incentive game, and they will, it will be time for the producers to play their trump card.... pitting crews against themselves to see who will work for the least. Film workers will morph into the Carney workers of today, following the jobs in RV's without health benefits, a living wage, or retirement.
Gary Dunham
cross-posted from Gary Dunham's comments at the Discussion Group:
The key term is "lure". (From LA to NY) Incentives do not create jobs. Incentives move jobs. The multiplier effect (supposed tax revenue) is a highly debated issue, akin to studio book keeping. The studios are in the habit of asking for (and receiving) non-participant investors in their projects. The states are nothing more than an investor that does not share in the profits... Kind of like crew members who work under concessionary contracts.
Incentives are a lose-lose proposition for the workforce. Most incentive legislation requires hiring local crews. Although good for the workforce in the beginning... not so good after a few years. Canada is a prime example. In the late 90's the producers took almost all the crew from the US... we trained our replacements and now few if any US crew venture past the northern boarder. (Or did at the height of US production in Canada)
And now with every state in the union getting into the incentive business, the process will repeat itself. As production is moved from state to state a trained workforce will be left behind. It becomes a supply and demand issue. When the states get tired of the incentive game, and they will, it will be time for the producers to play their trump card.... pitting crews against themselves to see who will work for the least. Film workers will morph into the Carney workers of today, following the jobs in RV's without health benefits, a living wage, or retirement.
Gary Dunham
Comment
About
Badge
SpeedTest
© 2009 Created by Jeffrey S. Wexler on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of CinemaSound from jwsound.net to add comments!
Join this Ning Network