Life of Pi without R&H

[Paul F]

VFX is going through the same pain as textiles, steel, consumer electronics, and most other manufacturing jobs did 40 years ago. The White collar jobs have been migrating en-mass to other countries for many years. VFX is not unique in this issue. None of those manufacturing or service industries have found a solution. i don't see that VFX is in a unique position to find some new solution to a basic supply and demand problem.


Subsidies are all over. Not VFX, but the U.S. does subsidize the film industry. If states wanted to keep the VFX jobs in their state, they could do the same.


http://filminpa.com/incentives/
http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dor/news/2012filmincentivereport.pdf
http://www.fbtfilm.com/film_incentives.aspx
http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/tax-professionals/pages/filmproductiontaxcredit.aspx
http://www.illinois.gov/dceo/whyillinois/Film/FilmTaxCredit/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.georgia.org/competitive-advantages/tax-credits/Pages/film-tv-credit.aspx

 

[Gillvane]

VFX is going through the same pain as textiles, steel, consumer electronics, and most other manufacturing jobs did 40 years ago. The White collar jobs have been migrating en-mass to other countries for many years. VFX is not unique in this issue. None of those manufacturing or service industries have found a solution. i don't see that VFX is in a unique position to find some new solution to a basic supply and demand problem.


Subsidies are all over. Not VFX, but the U.S. does subsidize the film industry. If states wanted to keep the VFX jobs in their state, they could do the same.


http://filminpa.com/incentives/
http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dor/news/2012filmincentivereport.pdf
http://www.fbtfilm.com/film_incentives.aspx
http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/tax-professionals/pages/filmproductiontaxcredit.aspx
http://www.illinois.gov/dceo/whyillinois/Film/FilmTaxCredit/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.georgia.org/competitive-advantages/tax-credits/Pages/film-tv-credit.aspx

The global economy is an interconnected web and if you start pulling the strands to manipulate it the whole thing starts to fall apart. The VFX house that is in a foreign country being subsidized lets Hollywood make more movies in the US, AND that same country subsidizing the VFX business is BUYING movies.

You're mad because they subsidize VFX so you put a tariff on their VFX services to make it "fair". Fine, but they are going to put a tariff on your movies to make it "fair" because States subsidize movies made in the US.

What does that accomplish? Less movies being made because they cost more to make, less movies being sold because they cost more to buy which means less revenue to make future movies, less people working in the film industry.

When you take the narrow view you end up with unintended consequences and cause more problems than you solve.

 

[Paul F]

I'm not supporting subsidies, only pointing out that they do exist in this country. People on this thread mentioned other countries are subsidizing as though it was unique to the other countries. I just wanted to point out that all countries have subsidies and can subsidize any industry they feel will help them.

U.S States will not subsize VFX.

 

[visugeek]

If you are a Freedman fan, then you can't support subsidies. If you are for free trade, but not fair trade, then you don't understand free trade.
Countries like India and China are not currently producing VFX at the level of the Western countries, you can't do that over night. It takes artists years to develop the skills that the Western artists have. I'm not worried about China and India. My beef is with trade subsidies. They are an illegal trade practice. Shops in countries that don't offer the subsidies aren't just competing with shops in other countries, because those shops in other countries are guaranteed to make a profit whether they are good businesses or not. They don't have to stand on their own two feet and compete on their merits alone, they are getting up to 60 cents on the dollar handed back to their clients by the government. That is insane.
We are trying to lobby to take them to the WTO or to get tariffs put in place on these films to balance things out. The subsidies constitute a trade war, and not fighting back is foolish.
If you competitor has someone buying jobs for them, the answer isn't to find someone to buy those jobs for you as well, the answer is to fight to eliminate the jobs fom being bought in the first place because under the WTO its illegal.
VFX companies in the states are happy to go toe to toes with any company on the planet, watch where the work goes once the subsidies go away.

Freedman has nothing to do with what is happening in the VFX industry, you clearly do not understand as you claim.

 

[Hunter Hampton]

The times have changed, we all know that- inexpensive access technology and globalization have created an easy avenue for greedy corporations to venture down. This stuff has been happening every day in many tech industries for the past decade or so (and will be ever increasing), I dont condone it- it has affected myself as well.

In my opinion its a litmus test for our excessive capitalization practices to which we no longer care about people- thats the core of whats happening here, more people care more about making money than they do about humanity. Its gross and ive been guilty of it.

Heres the good news; VFX artists are some of the most talented people working in the commercial, entertainment and film industries. There are little limits to what they can do. Screw the idea of working for a fat uncreative uncaring mega corporate greedy movie studio, Their days are limited anyway.

YOU, the VFX artist have the power, you can make your own movies (take Gareth Edwards for example). If you dont want to make movies, try to work at a small commercial shop (buck.tv artjail.com giantant.ca) or start your own. If you dont know what to do and your just coming off making titles for a movie like TRON, make some piece about a guy going to the store (http://vimeo.com/28501846) you just might start a directing career...

Anyway, I dont want to come off like I dont care, I do immensely- I just want to remind you that even though they have the power- you have the talent and you can do anything you want to with it.

Heck- if that all doesnt work out we can just move to some tropical island, start our own economy and just have a peaceful laid back time farming and trading goods with one another ; )

 

[David G. Smith]

Well, R&H has been sold.

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/prana-wins-auction-for-rhythm-hues-1200329765/

"Throughout the process, hiring has continued unabated at R&H’s new Taiwan facility, which is opening as originally scheduled. It expects to ramp up to 200+ staffers. All of R&H’s facilities outside the U.S. are owned by subsidiaries that were not part of the bankruptcy."

My only comments about this would be totally inappropriate for DVXUSER!

 

[Gillvane]

The times have changed, we all know that- inexpensive access technology and globalization have created an easy avenue for greedy corporations to venture down.

Corporations are owned by stock holders. Generally people with 401Ks in the US, retirement accounts that are invested in stocks, or institutional investors like life insurance companies.

The job of the corporation is to make as much money as legally possible for their stock holders. Anything else is cheating your stockholders.

 

[Razz16mm]

Corporations are owned by stock holders. Generally people with 401Ks in the US, retirement accounts that are invested in stocks, or institutional investors like life insurance companies.

The job of the corporation is to make as much money as legally possible for their stock holders. Anything else is cheating your stockholders.

The job of a corporation is to market goods and services in return for income. That income has to be divided in a balanced manner between suppliers, employees who actually create the goods and services, management, governments that provided services necessary for businesses and markets to exist, and investors.

 

[Gillvane]

The job of a corporation is to market goods and services in return for income. That income has to be divided in a balanced manner between suppliers, employees who actually create the goods and services, management, governments that provided services necessary for businesses and markets to exist, and investors.

If you have a private company, you may do anything you wish. you may overpay your employees, give your profits to charity, run the business into the ground and go broke with bad business practices, over pay your suppliers and give them double market price for your supplies if you want to, etc.

If you have a corporation that is public, in other words you are selling stock, you have a fiduciary duty to your stock holders.

your job is to make as much money as you legally can for your stock holders. You may not decide to over pay your employees (pay them more than market rate), because you would be taking that money directly from your stock holders and you have a legal duty not to steal from your stockholders.

Employees have a market value. It's determined just like the market value of anything else, supply and demand. If there are no nurses and lots of hospitals need nurses, competition for nurses will drive up wages. If the opposite is true, then wages for nurses will go down. Less people will go to nursing school because of this, so the supply will even out with demand.

If you are a publicly traded corporation then paying more than market price for employees would be stealing from your stock holders.

There is nothing to balance.

 

[David G. Smith]

However, corporations are not natural or inevitable entities. They are only granted rights and privileges by society through laws and public policies. If the actions and behaviors of the corporations are destructive or disruptive to society, which I believe that have become, then we as a society should examine those actions and behaviors and enact laws and public policies to address the problems.

 

[Razz16mm]

If you have a private company, you may do anything you wish. you may overpay your employees, give your profits to charity, run the business into the ground and go broke with bad business practices, over pay your suppliers and give them double market price for your supplies if you want to, etc.

If you have a corporation that is public, in other words you are selling stock, you have a fiduciary duty to your stock holders.

your job is to make as much money as you legally can for your stock holders. You may not decide to over pay your employees (pay them more than market rate), because you would be taking that money directly from your stock holders and you have a legal duty not to steal from your stockholders.

Employees have a market value. It's determined just like the market value of anything else, supply and demand. If there are no nurses and lots of hospitals need nurses, competition for nurses will drive up wages. If the opposite is true, then wages for nurses will go down. Less people will go to nursing school because of this, so the supply will even out with demand.

If you are a publicly traded corporation then paying more than market price for employees would be stealing from your stock holders.

There is nothing to balance.

So is a CEO and board voting excessive salaries and benefits for top management stealing from stock holders? Bad management can include NOT paying adequate labor costs and having sales, profits, and stock prices suffer as a result. Walmart found this out the hard way over the last couple of years. It is always a balancing act.

Should corporations be free to suppress wages and benefits for employees that create their wealth to the point that many qualify for public assistance like food stamps, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children? Why should major international corporations that mostly birdwork their books to pay no taxes benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their labor force instead of paying living wages? What happens when that results in a stagnant or declining consumer economy that hurts business and society in general because employees can't afford to buy the products their companies sell? What happens to businesses based on mass consumer economies when 80% of the population shares only 5% of GDP and the top 10% take 75%? That is the economy we live in right now.

 

[Gillvane]

However, corporations are not natural or inevitable entities. They are only granted rights and privileges by society through laws and public policies. If the actions and behaviors of the corporations are destructive or disruptive to society, which I believe that have become, then we as a society should examine those actions and behaviors and enact laws and public policies to address the problems.

Yes, corporations are governed by laws. Whether those laws should be changed or not delves into the realm of politics which is verboten on dvxuser.

 

[Gillvane]

So is a CEO and board voting excessive salaries and benefits for top management stealing from stock holders? Bad management can include NOT paying adequate labor costs and having sales, profits, and stock prices suffer as a result. Walmart found this out the hard way over the last couple of years. It is always a balancing act.

Should corporations be free to suppress wages and benefits for employees that create their wealth to the point that many qualify for public assistance like food stamps, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children? Why should major international corporations that mostly birdwork their books to pay no taxes benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their labor force instead of paying living wages? What happens when that results in a stagnant or declining consumer economy that hurts business and society in general because employees can't afford to buy the products their companies sell? What happens to businesses based on mass consumer economies when 80% of the population shares only 5% of GDP and the top 10% take 75%? That is the economy we live in right now.

You're missing the point. The point is not a dollar amount for wages. The point is the REASON for the dollar amount. If you wish to give your employees more money because it's "balanced" or "fair" or "the right thing to do" or because "corporations are to greedy" or any emotional or political reason, you are stealing from the stock holders.

If you wish to give your employees a raise for business reasons, you may certainly do so. Retention is a good goal in any business, so is competing for the best employees with salary or benefits, so is employee loyalty and productivity. All of these are valid reasons to pay your employees more than your competitor and can possibly make your stock holders more money.

What is "excessive" for for a CEO salary? Again, the market place decides. For example the CEO of a very large non profit The American Red Cross makes more than $500,000 dollars. Is that excessive? That is the rate, or more, for a CEO with experience in running this size of corporation. If you wish to compete for CEOs with that sort of management experience this is not in the least "excessive". If the company doesn't do well the CEO can be replaced at the whim of the Board and this does happen frequently in large corporations.

I think you are using emotional standards for your premises rather than sound economics. You're not going to get a CEO with Fortune 500 experience for 100 grand a year. If you want someone with experience managing billions it costs more than someone without such experience, just like Doctors make more than plumbers. EVeryone could say that anyone making more than them is paid "excessively". Anyone in a very poor third world country could say that everyone in the EU or the US is paid "excessively". It's all relative.