Lines are being redrawn for Japan's anime industry

[Marcus H.]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Honestly, you seem to just want to reject every notion or opinion made in this thread without fully supporting one of you own. You ask questions you cannot even answer yourself.

That's just overexaggerating. My last reply is to clarify if WanderingKnight wants to enforce a quality standard with the recently-departed Satoshi Kon and other great minds in Japanese animation in mind. On my other post, I pointed out that it's the middlemen to blame with the shortage of income of the mangaka. (My first post to this thread is slightly off-topic as it talked about mangaka, not the animators, I admit.)



Nihilism to the topic at hand can't be said in just one post.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Now, the animators are working the 80 hours for two main reasons: 1) Because 80 hours of work is required to do however many frames they need to do to make their marginal wage since they are paid by the frame/cell/whatever. This is the "by choice" part. 2) Because it's Japan and it still takes a ton of work to get an episode out weekly. This is the not-by-choice part. They aren't starting work on the animation the week before it airs though.

Then Japan needs laws like the US has, regarding a 40 hour work week. Beyond that is overtime, and thus by law, being paid time and a half. They are getting away with, what is essentially slave labor.

Unrestrained capitalism is a race to the bottom.

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Uhm, not even the theory is good in this

in theory and practice a.k.a reality Outsourcing makes more money or saves money
NEVER has there been spoken about lower prices

Sure it's what businessmen want the consumer to think, but I hope nobody still believes that BS

I agree. This is the BS that suits will tell you, in order to cut jobs. "Yeah, it sucks that 10,000 people lost their jobs; but the cheaper outsourcing will allow us to cut prices!"

Never, in the history of outsourcing, has that led to any noticeable price drops, if any. The savings is purely hoarded by the upper echelon. And it's only short-term savings, too, allowing them to show the company is increasing it's profits (since liabilities are down that term).

Long term, it's absolutely destructive, because now less people can buy the goods/services due to not having jobs. Less money is circulated in the economy, and is instead hoarded by the rich. Also, in the long-term, the company loses loyalties from consumers, gets bad PR, etc.

But none of this matters to the CEO, CIO, and board members. They show short-term growth, make money, and eventually jump ship with a golden parachute.

It's vitally important that we make outsourcing not worth it, and the only way I can think to do that, is via tariffs; which would help Japanese animators, too.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

in theory and practice a.k.a reality Outsourcing makes more money or saves money
NEVER has there been spoken about lower prices

Sure it's what businessmen want the consumer to think, but I hope nobody still believes that BS

We usually forget about inflation and the time value of money.

Sure, the nominal prices of goods do not necessarily fall, even when labour and other processes are outsourced. In most situations, a business has little incentive to offer less than what a market will pay, unless it is attempting to undercut its rivals for greater market share.

But in real terms, I think you will find that the prices of many goods have "fallen" vis-a-vis rising costs of living in the overall economy. Consider the rising cost of labour: If toy production, a low-skill, labour-intensive industry, remained entirely in developed economies, where workers naturally demand wages that are commensurate with their higher costs of living, would the price of toys remain the same? No, theoretically, the price would rise to account for increased labour costs.

Outsourcing toy production to low-wage economies like China thus allows, in theory, a business to continue selling toys at present prices, so long as labour costs in the less-developed economy allows those prices in developed markets. I say in theory only because I don't have figures at hand to demonstrate this, but it doesn't take much calculation to see how this would work, especially when you compare per capita blue-collar wages in, say, Germany or the United States, with those in China. The next step would be to ask whether the price of toys had risen in close tandem with rising labour costs in the home economy — I'm willing to bet that in most cases, it hasn't.

Hence, the real price of goods are kept low, thanks in part to outsourcing. In the meantime, the economies to which production has been outsourced to benefit from increased employment and investment. Eventually, they too will climb up the value chain, which would bring about corresponding increases in labour costs. We are already seeing this happen in the rapidly growing China, where prices, especially property prices, have been shooting up because of too much cash in the economy (a result of Beijing's stimulus programme late last year). Labour-intensive textile factories used to dominate the economy in Shenzhen, but many have since moved out, either further inland where the second-tier Chinese cities are, or to other low-wage economies in South-east Asia, such as Vietnam and Cambodia. Just earlier this year, there has been labour unrest in parts of China, with workers demanding higher pay from Japanese car-parts manufacturers, from Toyota to Honda.

Which brings me to this:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

It's vitally important that we make outsourcing not worth it, and the only way I can think to do that, is via tariffs; which would help Japanese animators, too.

What you're, in effect, asking for is protectionism, and we well know the impact that such a policy would have on world trade and global economic growth, at a time when the United States, Japan and the euro zone can least afford deal with it. As someone who is apparently very proud of his libertarian principles, I find it ironic that, in this case, you would push for government-imposed barriers to competition.

[karice67]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I'm a supporter of "big government" but, even then, I would not recommend regulation or any other kind of government intervention here to prop up what is, in effect, an unsustainable business model, for all the reasons that Sackett had already outlined earlier in this thread.

I'm not talking about monetary support, but rather regulations about how much can be outsourced and how much must be done in the country. Similar to how overseas branches of companies are sometimes (often?) required to hire a certain proportion of local workers. If the government (or the industry itself) could somehow put this kind of regulation in place, coupled with an increase in the minimum pay for each cel produced, then the situation for animators in Japan should theoretically get better.

But whether any kind of regulation would be possible or not...

Then again, as you said...

In any case, Tokyo has much bigger problems to worry about than to be concerned with the survival of a non-vital economic sector.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Do you understand how that comes across? I say, "humans can fly through the air unpowered; there are a number of people already doing it with gliding" and you say, "gliding simply won't work because there are a number of holes."

This analogy is too simplistic, and really, doesn't quite work. A glider is ONE contraption, albeit one that employs a range of technologies. The manga and anime industry would be, I don't know, a flying castle? A few parts of it will work brilliantly (ala the success of Hetalia), but the castle itself won't get off the ground.

Also, I haven't seen or read much of Hetalia, but I know that the ONA is composed of 5-min shorts. The manga looks like a 4-coma manga. Will this kind of publishing work for a long running manga with an actual plot? If it can, it'd be better for the mangaka's health, since they'd be able to work according to their own schedule, but nevertheless, they actually need to be able to make a living first.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Indeed, if there is an excess of supply, then price drops. And mangaka who write poorly won't sell much, but that's something I said already in several posts.

i.e. the status quo won't change. Successful people will be successful, and the rest will remain in poverty. So why would or should a web-based publication model replace the current industry model?

Originally Posted by Kaijo

But also part of the issue is the amount of anime has tripled. The industry is going to shrink now, and some animators will have to find other lines of work.

A few of us have been saying this since the 3rd page of this thread, and it applies to the manga industry as well. As TinyRedLeaf said earlier, some of the idealistic dreamers need to go. The industry needs to find a point where supply and demand meet, and yet enable people to actually make a living. At present, there is WAY too much supply, and I don't see your solution doing anything for it.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Still headquartered in Japan, still with Japanese business men in places of power. They are obviously okay with what is going on. But if you don't want to use Sony, here a general overview ofCorruption and Government Scandals in Japan.

As I mentioned before, it's a multinational. What do you expect in a world with capitalist values?

This was my original challenge to you:

but do you have evidence to show that this kind of corrupt behaviour is widespread in Japan?

From your link: "Japan is the 18th least corrupted country in the world".
Please show me a creator in Japan who has his own company, but still rips off his employees? Corruption tends to involve money...and what others and I have been saying is that there really isn't that much money to go around in the first place, once you consider all the costs. So whilst I'm sure that the execs of the big companies (Aniplex etc) are paid well, I'd hesitate to say that they're taking home mind-boggling amounts like the CEOs of certain Western banking giants in recent years. And I'm pretty certain they're working for it too. Yup, the 80-hour week applies to pretty much everyone in Japanese society...more so if you're one of the execs.

Still, that pre-union past pretty much describes the plight of Japanese animators, who are taken advantage of. It'll be up to the animators to organize themselves, and get their government to guarantee them fair business treatment. If mostly all the animators walked off the job and made the industry stand still, I guarantee there would be some positive changes.

LOL...unions in Japan. The Japanese people need to change first. From the corruption link you posted:

"Explaining why more isn’t done to stop corruption, Kimiko Manes, author Culture Shock in Mind, wrote in the Daily Yomiuri: “If one’s subordinates or even supervisor are doing something unlawful, the group dynamic becomes complicated. It is hard for the Japanese to speak up as it may lead to the loss of face of for the whole organization. To break the trust of the group, and cause shame for the supervisor...is hard for the Japanese to do. As a consequence Japanese people can be reluctant to become ‘whistle-blowers’...Even if a whistleblower actions are justifiable, he or she will be persecuted within the organization.”

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Then Japan needs laws like the US has, regarding a 40 hour work week. Beyond that is overtime, and thus by law, being paid time and a half. They are getting away with, what is essentially slave labor.

Animators are paid for work that is completed, so overtime pay conditions don't come into play.

Also, according to the people I've worked with, laws that are meant to cut down the excessive overtime here do exist, but rather than working less, Japanese people tend not to report their overtime. Why? Simply put, because it reflects badly on their company (see bolded text in the corruption quote above).

What I've been trying to say from the start is this: the first thing that needs to change isn't the industry, but the mentality of the Japanese people. And that'll involve a complete restructuring of Japanese society - from education to employment to lifestyles etc - which might just be impossible.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Long term, it's absolutely destructive, because now less people can buy the goods/services due to not having jobs. Less money is circulated in the economy, and is instead hoarded by the rich. Also, in the long-term, the company loses loyalties from consumers, gets bad PR, etc.

I don't know why we keep going back and forth when I completely agree with you on things like this.

Spoiler for wandering OT...:

I remember reading about the early history of some hugely successful American company, when its employees were paid well so that they could spend their earnings to further the economy (hopefully through their own company's products, of course). But the president of that company was also very compassionate towards his own staff - one anecdote had him inquiring after the sick husband of one of his employees. Whatever happened to those kinds of executives?

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by karice67

So whilst I'm sure that the execs of the big companies (Aniplex etc) are paid well, I'd hesitate to say that they're taking home mind-boggling amounts like the CEOs of certain Western banking giants in recent years.

The Japanese government recently enacted a regulation that requires the disclosure of executive salaries above 100 million yen, or just over $1 million at today's exchange rates. Surprisingly only 300 CEOs met the requirement, and most of them were only slightly over $1 million. From the article below, "At Toyota, for example, the chairman draws $1.5 million and the CEO does not even make the $1.1 million required for public disclosure. That's tiny in comparison with the salaries of top U.S. executives. In 2009, the CEOs of Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy, and FedEx made $51.9 million, $49.3 million, and $44.5 million respectively."

See: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opini...-Salaries-4253

One commentator suggests that padded expense accounts might be a way around the low official salaries, but they would have to be pretty heavily padded to get up to the $50 million range.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You're forgetting that the terrible pay is partly made possible by an oversupply of artists who are willing to work for beans "for the sake of art".

So, theoretically, enough animators in Japan will finally accept that they can't make a living on their art, and either 1) move to some other place in the world where their talent can find better employment; 2) abandon their anime aspirations to pursue better-paying jobs; 3) stick with it to the better end.

The assumption here being that the third group of animators are the "fittest" of the lot, most likely producing the best products capable of drawing in enough revenue for them to sustain prolonged attrition in the industry.

Or, equally plausibly I think, animation studios will rely more and more on programming for the niche "otaku" audience whose enthusiasm for the product might make them less sensitive to production quality. In this model the industry becomes ever more reliant on the lowest-cost labor either locally in Japan or in other countries. I'd expect the big houses like Madhouse to maintain a certain level of quality because they have the resources to do so, but the smaller studios? I'm not so sure.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I'd expect the big houses like Madhouse to maintain a certain level of quality because they have the resources to do so, but the smaller studios? I'm not so sure.

Which isn't a bad thing, in my opinion. If the smaller studios fail, so be it. The industry appears to be in dire need of consolidation and, if my impressions from J-drama are anything to go by, the Japanese have a very strong social aversion to letting mom-and-pop businesses die out. In this respect, the Japanese are somewhat similar to the French (witness the French zeal for protecting their "national cinema"). There is a feeling that some aspects of their culture are dying out in the face of impersonal commercialism, and it naturally stirs up feelings of being a nation under siege.

Personally, though, I'm stuck somewhere in between the two opposing views. As I've said, I'm a supporter of big government. I don't believe that capitalism should be allowed to run unfettered. There are values worth preserving, even in the face of cold, commercial logic.

But this is a question for the Japanese to answer themselves. Do they regard anime as being so uniquely Japanese that it is worth spending taxpayer money to preserve it? I wouldn't criticise them too harshly if they choose to do so, even though I would regard it largely as an exercise in futility.

After all, too much pragmatism has led to the situation young Singaporeans face today — we are a people with not much memory of our past, because our leaders, unsentimental engineers and technocrats to the core, have pursued aggressive urban renewal over the years, on top of deliberate rewriting of the nation-building myth. Is it any wonder then that the youth have very little sense of the roots that bind them?

EDIT:

Incidentally, I'm amused that you didn't quote this particularly priceless comment, given its significant relevance to this thread.

US companies should outsource CEO labour: Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias gets tongue-in-cheek. "I assume that if this was an article about how some Chinese factory workers do essentially the same job as some American factory workers, but they do it for much less money, the bottom line would be about all the efficiencies that can be reaped through outsourcing production to Asia.

"And to me the bottom line seems to be the same. Toyota is a much larger and, dare I say, more successful firm than Ford, whose CEO appears to be making over $20 million a year. Surely there's some senior person over there who speaks English and would be willing to do Alan Mulally's job for Carlos Ghosn (Nissan's CEO) money, right? CEO pay in China also seems to be quite low."

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by karice67

I'm not talking about monetary support, but rather regulations about how much can be outsourced and how much must be done in the country. Similar to how overseas branches of companies are sometimes (often?) required to hire a certain proportion of local workers. If the government (or the industry itself) could somehow put this kind of regulation in place, coupled with an increase in the minimum pay for each cel produced, then the situation for animators in Japan should theoretically get better.

Again, I mentioned tariffs. When a Japanese company outsources animation, a very physical product comes back into the country. Tax the imports high enough to make up for the lesser cost of the out-sourced work, so that animators in country are on equal footing.

This analogy is too simplistic, and really, doesn't quite work. A glider is ONE contraption, albeit one that employs a range of technologies. The manga and anime industry would be, I don't know, a flying castle? A few parts of it will work brilliantly (ala the success of Hetalia), but the castle itself won't get off the ground.

But that ignores the fact that there are floating houses out there. What I'm saying is, this method HAS been working for many people in several different industries, some of which produce things more complex and time-consuming than anime. Thus, there is every reason to believe it would work for anime, too. And you even have an example in Hetalia, a free series that has grown quite popular, enough to make some anime shorts of.

So, can you understand why people would get confused at you saying, "It won't work!" when there is clearly evidence of it working?

but nevertheless, they actually need to be able to make a living first.

Given the fact that he's still alive and producing, I would say he's making a living.

i.e. the status quo won't change. Successful people will be successful, and the rest will remain in poverty. So why would or should a web-based publication model replace the current industry model?

What would change: the power would shift back to the mangaka, the artist, who would also one of the key animators. They could then demand better contracts. The successful mangaka/animators would then not be living in poverty. Currently, unless you're a superstar, you don't make crap.

Which is ironically identical to the music situation when everyone had to sign with a label. 99% of the musicians that signed, ended up in poverty. The 1% who succeeded and became superstars were able to live quite well, but the label still took home 95% of the profit.

As I mentioned before, it's a multinational. What do you expect in a world with capitalist values?

I expect exactly what's happening. Apparently, you expect that a capitalist company in a capitalist country to somehow be a bastion of pixie dust.

This was my original challenge to you: but do you have evidence to show that this kind of corrupt behaviour is widespread in Japan?

From your link: "Japan is the 18th least corrupted country in the world".
Please show me a creator in Japan who has his own company, but still rips off his employees? Corruption tends to involve money...and what others and I have been saying is that there really isn't that much money to go around in the first place, once you consider all the costs. So whilst I'm sure that the execs of the big companies (Aniplex etc) are paid well, I'd hesitate to say that they're taking home mind-boggling amounts like the CEOs of certain Western banking giants in recent years. And I'm pretty certain they're working for it too. Yup, the 80-hour week applies to pretty much everyone in Japanese society...more so if you're one of the execs.

There are numerous examples of corruption in that article, such as institutionalized bribery, kickbacks, getting jobs for bought politicians when they leave office as thanks, etc. All of which require money, and the better bribes and kickbacks lead to more profit and a more successful company. Given that bribery and kickbacks are rewarded, what do you expect a company to do? It's basic human nature here; positive stimulus and reward. Pavlov's dogs are salivating.

LOL...unions in Japan. The Japanese people need to change first. From the corruption link you posted:

"Explaining why more isn’t done to stop corruption, Kimiko Manes, author Culture Shock in Mind, wrote in the Daily Yomiuri: “If one’s subordinates or even supervisor are doing something unlawful, the group dynamic becomes complicated. It is hard for the Japanese to speak up as it may lead to the loss of face of for the whole organization. To break the trust of the group, and cause shame for the supervisor...is hard for the Japanese to do. As a consequence Japanese people can be reluctant to become ‘whistle-blowers’...Even if a whistleblower actions are justifiable, he or she will be persecuted within the organization.”

Again, this is almost exactly like how it was in the US. Everyone was initially afraid to speak out. Eventually, we had people willing to step forward. Maybe Japan will be forever craven, I don't know. I simply stated that this was one way to solve the problem. And given the fact that they've already formed something that looks a lot like a union, I'd say they are capable of it (check the very initial article in the first post).

Animators are paid for work that is completed, so overtime pay conditions don't come into play.

Government regulations can change that. Again, just another idea presented that *can* help solve the problem. Whether it will happen at all, or the difficulty in doing so, is a separate issue. And it should be stated that I feel no one solution is best; I'd favor a multi-pronged approach.

Also, according to the people I've worked with, laws that are meant to cut down the excessive overtime here do exist, but rather than working less, Japanese people tend not to report their overtime. Why? Simply put, because it reflects badly on their company (see bolded text in the corruption quote above).

People in the US didn't use to report their overtime, or complain about it. Hell, some still don't. Things changed.

What I've been trying to say from the start is this: the first thing that needs to change isn't the industry, but the mentality of the Japanese people. And that'll involve a complete restructuring of Japanese society - from education to employment to lifestyles etc - which might just be impossible.

Partially. But given that they are changing (see the formation of a union-like entity already), I'd say they are on their way.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The Japanese government recently enacted a regulation that requires the disclosure of executive salaries above 100 million yen, or just over $1 million at today's exchange rates. Surprisingly only 300 CEOs met the requirement, and most of them were only slightly over $1 million. From the article below, "At Toyota, for example, the chairman draws $1.5 million and the CEO does not even make the $1.1 million required for public disclosure. That's tiny in comparison with the salaries of top U.S. executives. In 2009, the CEOs of Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy, and FedEx made $51.9 million, $49.3 million, and $44.5 million respectively."

One commentator suggests that padded expense accounts might be a way around the low official salaries, but they would have to be pretty heavily padded to get up to the $50 million range.

In the US, they get around it by gifts, bonuses, and generous stock options. Of course, they also have higher executive pay, but that's peanuts compared to the perks (and the golden parachute). It's really only US companies that have outrageous CEO salaries, but you get the perks and such all over the globe. I'd be interested to see exactly what the CEO and board members get when you add in everything else.

A US CEO may make 20 million a year, but get hundreds of millions in perks, expense accounts, gifts, stock options, etc.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

EDIT:

Incidentally, I'm amused that you didn't quote this particularly priceless comment, given its significant relevance to this thread.

Quote:

You're just pointing out that the rationale for outsourcing is bogus ... and that the CEOs of the large US firms are simply interested in padding their own pockets at the expense of the workers, the shareholders, or even the long term viability of the corporation.

The "Board of Directors" are supposed to prevent this nonsense but if you follow the lines you'll that the BoD of most corporations in the US are the CEOs of other corporations and there's so much incest and conflict of interest the very air stinks of rot.

As for Japan, the outsourcing in the anime industry may be a smaller scale example (especially as Japan keeps borrowing the less prudent practices of US firms) but gosh golly it is oddly difficult to find out how much the executives (or the owners) pocket while they strip operational costs to the bone.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're just pointing out that the rationale for outsourcing is bogus ... and that the CEOs of the large US firms are simply interested in padding their own pockets at the expense of the workers, the shareholders, or even the long term viability of the corporation.

Actually, the problem you are pointing out is caused more by the competition for "talent".

Yes, before you choke on the idea, it's the consequence of excessive bidding for the "best" person to lead a company. The phenomenon is not just limited to top business executives, but also to sports superstars. In fact, the runaway bids for top soccer stars by the 20 clubs of the Barclays Premier League provide the most egregious example of this so-called competition for talent. It's a trend that has essentially turned the BPL into a massive money game. Effectively, only the richest clubs can afford the best players. This season alone provides a telling example, with upstarts Manchester City fielding a glittering team that defeated stalwarts Liverpool 3-0 just last Tuesday (the Reds, not surprisingly, are dealing with huge financial problems, no thanks to their American owners). Man City's success comes courtesy of Middle-East oil wealth, mind you.

The question, really, is whether there is an upper-bound on the value of "talent". This is an issue that modern capitalism struggles to properly resolve. What's so rare and special about the abilities of a particular individual that make him several thousand times more valuable than a blue-collar worker?

There is a huge social disconnect here: Under a meritocratic system, we accept that people should be paid their full worth. But, at the same time, we can't seem to decide when that "worth" becomes socially obscene. Of course, there's also the huge question of whether the individuals actually deserved to be called "talented" in the first place. If Wall Street bankers claim not to be responsible for losses they couldn't have forseen, then it's also justifiable to assume that they are no more responsible for the good results either.

In which case, do the fat cats of Wall Street really deserve their million-dollar bonuses? Hmm...

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Actually, the problem you are pointing out is caused more by the competition for "talent".

Yes, before you choke on the idea, it's the consequence of excessive bidding for the "best" person to lead a company. The phenomenon is not just limited to top business executives, but also to sports superstars. In fact, the runaway bids for top soccer stars by the 20 clubs of the Barclays Premier League provide the most egregious example of this so-called competition for talent. It's a trend that has essentially turned the BPL into a massive money game. Effectively, only the richest clubs can afford the best players. This season alone provides a telling example, with upstarts Manchester City fielding a glittering team that defeated stalwarts Liverpool 3-0 just last Tuesday (the Reds, not surprisingly, are dealing with huge financial problems, no thanks to their American owners). Man City's success comes courtesy of Middle-East oil wealth, mind you.

That's a bit of a false analogy, because a good sports player can show that they are good; they score more goals, or hit more home runs, or run the most yards. There is a real, tangible, physical connection to what the player brings to the team.

The reason a company succeeds or fails doesn't have as much to do with the CEO. Sure, they can set down rules, or try to initiate buying and hiring practices, but the success of the company rests a whole lot more on everyone else doing their job. Really, the rationale for CEO salary is to have someone responsible at the top, who *should* take the fall if the company does poorly.

Problem is, even if they are kicked as a fall guy, or for really doing poorly, they still go out with a golden parachute. Even if they are CEO for a year, they earn enough money during that time, and get enough of a pension, that they don't ever need to work again (and sometimes will be hired by another company as a CEO).

You'll find this is the case almost no matter where you go. The upper echelon protects themselves; it truly is a rich man's club.

So yeah, we'll never get accurate numbers for how cash is distributed within big Japanese animation companies, and it's done that way for a very good reason. If people knew exactly how badly they were being ripped off... well, the economic collapse kinda shows it, too, but I guess not enough people care enough to start shooting yet.

Note that you may point out smaller animation companies, but their situation is the result of the bigger ones. It happens all the time; a bigger company will provide better deals, for lower prices, in order to force a smaller competitor to collapse. The bigger company can absorb the loss. So the bigger ones outsource, and then the smaller ones feel the squeeze and have to follow suit, in order to remain competitive.

In all honesty, until we line the rich bastards up against the wall and spill some blood, they're gonna continue to fleece us. If we put the fear of God back into them with a little death and revolution, they'll behave for awhile.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

It works for companies as well as governments. Anyone in power.

[WanderingKnight]

It's just not the same at all. Animators are completely inseparable from the end product; they're artists, not technicians. In fact, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that animators are the actors of animation. Satoshi Kon movies weren't all Satoshi Kon; they wouldn't have been nearly as good if they weren't filled with talented, unique animators capable of creating the expressive visuals required to make Kon's script and direction work.

Okay, let me take another example: Amateur movies. They're still done by the lots, and many of them are done on a really tight budget, and some of them get to be even better than most hundred-billion-dollar Hollywood productions. I should know, I have a lot of filmmaking friends.

Except it doesn't seem like the animators themselves are getting rich, are they?

Animators aren't the ones directing the decisions. They're the workforce, not the ones who take the decision what to produce.

Whatever you may think of Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" is at work here. We have an oversupply of animators, hence leading to depressed wages because of the intense competition over a limited supply of projects. Left to its own devices, market will eventually force the less-talented animators to drop out of the industry, until equilibrium is achieved.

But this is not about animators. This is about producers and investors chasing the money. Animators being underpaid is another issue altogether, in my opinion -- another cog in the make-more-money machine, but parallel to the manipulation of the market in order to obtain the biggest profit.

No. The lack of buyers is killing this off. The industry keeps giving original anime another chance and it keeps on flopping. (See Anime no Chikara block, many Madhouse works, some Production I.G. stuff, Gonzo etc.)

New season is coming in two months in and the only original series is Gainax's production. The rest is all adaptations. Original anime is dying out.

I don't think it's a lack of buyers, I think it's an intentional manipulation of the market in order to provide the most cash in the least effort (ie, money invested) possible. Anyone can make a deal with the author of an underselling, crappy manga and make it a big hit with three or four good first episodes, neglecting the remaining eight, and get extremely rich in the process. I've been to Akihabara, and let me tell you, the manga (and thus, in the age of adaptations, the anime) that sells the most is not the best one, it's the one that shouts the loudest. There's way too much crap to wade through in those stores. I also went right at the beginning of a new season (first week of April), and the effect an adaptation has on the original material (how it is displayed on the stores, where it is put, how it is advertised) is impressive.

If it were an inherent problem within original anime, then it shouldn't have taken this long and we'd have seen anime's true face as a huge advertisement for manga authors much, much earlier.

EDIT: I realize I'm saying something terribly obvious. Maybe it's just a matter of differing points of view. I believe free market is a farce, it's very likely that you're viewing it from the other side.

Wait, what? Are you saying all the animators doing below minimum wage work don't already do it out of love and dedication? Are you fucking kidding me?

Animators are not producers nor investors.

[karice67]

@Kajio
I know this might sound really impolite, but could you please try to understand what I've posted before replying? It's really tiring to reply just to point out where you've misconstrued me...(it turns out I have internet access here...but I should really be doing other things rather than just coming back to this forum...)

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Given the fact that he's still alive and producing, I would say he's making a living.

Right, perhaps I should have used "income source" instead. By "make a living first", I meant that they need money/funds to be able to produce that free manga in the first place. Not every creative person can do that - some don't even have computer access.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

What would change: the power would shift back to the mangaka, the artist, who would also one of the key animators.

Animation =/= manga. There are reasons why mangaka leave the key animations to anime staff. And btw, by the time an anime is greenlit for a manga, I'd say that that mangaka is doing pretty well.

=======

In other words, my main points are:
Sure, your solution puts power back in the hands of the artist. But you're ignoring the fact that (1) even they need money to start off, (2) there will still be mangaka in poverty who should seriously just give up and do something else, and (3) it does nothing for the people doing the gruntwork in animation, which was the point of this thread in the first place.

=======

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I expect exactly what's happening. Apparently, you expect that a capitalist company in a capitalist country to somehow be a bastion of pixie dust.

No I don't. I was just trying to get you to turn your focus to the smaller companies that are relevant to the argument, not the big companies that are run by Western principles.

If you take a look at the article SeijiSensei posted, and follow the links, you'll find that even the top paid CEOs in Japan are actually Westerners. CEOs who are Japanese are paid a fair bit less in comparison. As one of the commentators said, "even expensing golf memberships and homes at outrageous prices, I don't see how you get from $1 million to, say, the $8 million that Rick Wagoner was making before GM went bust."

p.s. Aniplex is owned by SONY Music Entertainment Japan, which is a publicly listed company. This means that their CEO Salaries should appear under the new rules mentioned in that article.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'd be interested to see exactly what the CEO and board members get when you add in everything else.

Here are a few more articles about Japanese CEOs vs the rest. Ironically, one of these articles notes that Japanese companies are going to need to pay their CEOs more in order to make the companies more successful.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

There are numerous examples of corruption in that article, such as institutionalized bribery, kickbacks, getting jobs for bought politicians when they leave office as thanks, etc. All of which require money, and the better bribes and kickbacks lead to more profit and a more successful company. Given that bribery and kickbacks are rewarded, what do you expect a company to do? It's basic human nature here; positive stimulus and reward. Pavlov's dogs are salivating.

Besides what I've said above, you seem to be assuming that the companies in the anime world are big enough in the first place to participate in all this, and that their product is important enough.

=========

Ultimately, I can only offer the evidence that people have laid out, coupled with the fact that there have been no execs ousted by angry shareholders. If you've read the articles linked in this thread and still aren't willing to accept that Japanese principles mean that Japanese people aren't as greedy as the West, then there is nothing more I can do.

========

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Partially. But given that they are changing (see the formation of a union-like entity already), I'd say they are on their way.

Unions have been around for a while - at least, I know they exist for teachers etc. But once again, if you know what Japanese society is like, you'll understand that this won't be enough.

And no offense, but frankly, I'd rather not have everything change to the American/Western way. Not only are there are some really positive aspects of Japanese society that will be lost along the way, but strong unions doesn't necessarily mean a better society. There are cases where the strength of certain unions have meant that a government's hands are tied in areas where they shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And it should be stated that I feel no one solution is best; I'd favor a multi-pronged approach.

Then rather than misconstruing what people have written and just focusing on why your solution works for a particular area, offer those solutions when we bring up the pertinent points!

edit: I read your tariffs idea. I think the person you want to take it up with is TinyRedLeaf, not me.

[Aird]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

New season is coming in two months in and the only original series is Gainax's production. The rest is all adaptations. Original anime is dying out.

I don't think it's a lack of buyers, I think it's an intentional manipulation of the market in order to provide the most cash in the least effort (ie, money invested) possible. Anyone can make a deal with the author of an underselling, crappy manga and make it a big hit with three or four good first episodes, neglecting the remaining eight, and get extremely rich in the process. I've been to Akihabara, and let me tell you, the manga (and thus, in the age of adaptations, the anime) that sells the most is not the best one, it's the one that shouts the loudest. There's way too much crap to wade through in those stores. I also went right at the beginning of a new season (first week of April), and the effect an adaptation has on the original material (how it is displayed on the stores, where it is put, how it is advertised) is impressive.

If it were an inherent problem within original anime, then it shouldn't have taken this long and we'd have seen anime's true face as a huge advertisement for manga authors much, much earlier.

It could just be what the mass consumer desires have changed. At the end of the day, the people paying for the products are voting on what should be made. How is it manipulation? Is anyone forcing people to pay for anime which is a non essential good? If people feel cheated on what they purchased, they'll make there feelings known by refusal to buy. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once enough people share your opinion on original anime, the producers will be forced to innovate again.

On the same token, maybe animators are fairly compensated. If it they feel they should be paid a higher amount, they wouldn't work at the current wage. They should change occupations until wages increase to make it worth there time to animate.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Animators are not producers nor investors.

I get what you're saying, but the system is in fact producing quality anime shows. You don't need a whole lot of love on part of everyone else involved beside the creative pool (the producers, investors, ad men and broadcast houses) to make and sell a good product.

=====

Taking into account what was said about self-publishing, the success of today's TV anime depends on TV networks and the advertising agencies who, along with the music industry, are sucking anime projects dry. Whatever argument can be made about the merit of their contribution to the project's success, from the perspective of project planners it would make sense to avoid them if possible. I am not sure about removing ad agencies and the music industry out of the equation--the former is essential and the latter is unavoidable because it's run by gangsters--but the internet can easily replace TV broadcasters. I'm not knowledgable enough to know just how inseparable these investors are in reality, but we have had successful projects with internet-only broadcasts before. It is something to think about.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

That's a bit of a false analogy, because a good sports player can show that they are good; they score more goals, or hit more home runs, or run the most yards. There is a real, tangible, physical connection to what the player brings to the team.

The reason a company succeeds or fails doesn't have as much to do with the CEO. Sure, they can set down rules, or try to initiate buying and hiring practices, but the success of the company rests a whole lot more on everyone else doing their job.

I'm afraid that's just your bias talking here. The way you describe it, it's as though a chief executive's performance is not closely monitored. He or she is assessed by a variety of factors: tangible ones, such as revenue, profit or returns on shareholder equity, among other performance indicators. Then there are the more intangible factors such as leadership, change or succession management and so on.

To put it another way, he or she is not unlike the manager of a sports team. If, as you say, the actual work is being done by the players and the manager is simply there to be a figurehead and a sacrificial lamb should the team fail, then I would legitimately ask why the club should be paying for a manager in the first place. Sounds like a waste of money, if you ask me, since he is ultimately not responsible for the team's success. Conversely, if he is not directly responsible for the team's performance, why should he be sacked if it fails? It's the players' fault, not the manager's. Sack the team instead.

=====

Moreover, you've skipped the most important question I asked: Should there be an upper bound on the value of "talent"? Is there ever a point where a person's pay grows so large that it becomes obscene? And, if such a point exists, who decides when enough is enough?

For example, I wouldn't dispute Tiger Woods' talent as a golfer, in spite of his botched personal life and atrocious season this year, but is his talent really worth US$1 billion? What's so special about his non-economically vital golfing skills that makes him several thousand times more valuable than, say, a farmer, a car assembly-line worker or a wafer-fab engineer?

In the end, I don't think anyone can satisfactorily explain why such massive income disparity exists in a competitive labour market. Woods' worth is partly because of his rare qualities as a golfer, so that's why most of us would not begrudge his millions of hard-earned money. Conversely, grunt workers with disposable skills like parts assembly — or, yikes, drawing and animation — are easily replaceable. Hence their relative inability to command premium wages.

So, two things: Either market conditions reduce the number of Japanese animators, hence increasing their per capita income; or Japanese animators acquire some unique skills that aren't easily replaceable, thus allowing them to command better wages.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by karice67

Right, perhaps I should have used "income source" instead. By "make a living first", I meant that they need money/funds to be able to produce that free manga in the first place. Not every creative person can do that - some don't even have computer access.

You should look into Open Source, or take a look around Sourceforge. Tons of free programs, produced by people. Programs that are more complex and take more hours than any anime or manga. How do they do that?

You're probably running Firefox, ya? A free program. You probably have quite a few free-addons with it, too. People who produced something. What is their income source? Once you answer these questions, you'll have your answer.

On second thought, I'll let you know: not everyone gets into the job they want, and many take jobs in college or what not, and subsist on that while they work on getting their start. It's not unusual to see an wannabe actor waiting tables until they make their break. Webcomics people like Tycho and Gabe probably had another source of income before they made it big with Penny Arcade.

Animation =/= manga. There are reasons why mangaka leave the key animations to anime staff. And btw, by the time an anime is greenlit for a manga, I'd say that that mangaka is doing pretty well.

Do you have sources to back that up? Because from everything I've read, most mangaka are living just as much in poverty as the animation staff. Only a few become superstars and actually make a decent living.

In other words, my main points are:
Sure, your solution puts power back in the hands of the artist. But you're ignoring the fact that (1) even they need money to start off,

So what? Everyone does. A lot of people take other jobs while they develop their main passion. A lot of people still manage to produce highly complex things like programs, books, or music, for free... and eventually make a living off it. It's about being smart.

(2) there will still be mangaka in poverty who should seriously just give up and do something else,

There are actors out of work and in poverty. These people are stupid; if you can't make a living doing what you like, then you need to take a job that can pay the bills until you can. Society doesn't guarantee you a living; only a chance. You have to use your brain to support yourself.

But I'd wager there would be a whole lot more mangaka making a decent living with the method that's been proven to work, then the current one. Why? You may not be familiar with programmers, but plenty make a living making free programs. Plenty of musicians make a living giving out free music. Even authors are starting to get into the game, giving out their books for free. It turns out, when they ask for donations, they get more money than if they signed on with another company.

and (3) it does nothing for the people doing the gruntwork in animation, which was the point of this thread in the first place.

By itself, not directly. It's part of the multi-pronged approach that can work, though. Indirectly, it does. It's part of shifting the balance of power from the bigger companies, to the artists. Where the power shifts, the money follows, although other steps will be needed, which I've outlined in various other posts.

If you take a look at the article SeijiSensei posted, and follow the links, you'll find that even the top paid CEOs in Japan are actually Westerners. CEOs who are Japanese are paid a fair bit less in comparison. As one of the commentators said, "even expensing golf memberships and homes at outrageous prices, I don't see how you get from $1 million to, say, the $8 million that Rick Wagoner was making before GM went bust."

And how much do they make from stock options? Kickbacks? Bribes? Under the table deals? Expense accounts? Other perks?

Going solely by CEO salary is disingenuous at best, especially when I've shown that bribery, kickbacks, and corruption are prevalent in Japanese society. You pretty much have to ignore basic human nature in order to think that Japanese companies are squeaky clean. You have to ignore greed. You have to pretend that everyone is playing nice, and won't actually take money from someone who won't fight back.

Just tell me that you believe that all Japanese CEO's are honorable and would never abuse or take advantage of the lower class, and we can end this argument. I won't agree with you, but I'll understand if you want to believe that somehow basic human nature is circumvented in this one single country.

Ultimately, I can only offer the evidence that people have laid out, coupled with the fact that there have been no execs ousted by angry shareholders. If you've read the articles linked in this thread and still aren't willing to accept that Japanese principles mean that Japanese people aren't as greedy as the West, then there is nothing more I can do.

By your own words, you say the Japanese worker won't speak out, so as to not shame the company. So you really don't have a point here, because by your view, there would be no execs outed by angry shareholders. And even in the west, rarely is a CEO outed by angry shareholders. Japanese companies are learning, and seeing the amount of fleecing the west is getting away with.

Unions have been around for a while - at least, I know they exist for teachers etc. But once again, if you know what Japanese society is like, you'll understand that this won't be enough.

Well, we're making progress. Before, you said that unions couldn't exist in Japan. Now you acknowledge them, but say they won't be enough. You're partially right, in that they might not be enough, but it's proof that your interpretation of Japanese culture isn't exactly right, and that things are changing. Who can say how far it will go? It may or may not be enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

And no offense, but frankly, I'd rather not have everything change to the American/Western way. Not only are there are some really positive aspects of Japanese society that will be lost along the way, but strong unions doesn't necessarily mean a better society. There are cases where the strength of certain unions have meant that a government's hands are tied in areas where they shouldn't be.

What makes you think that anything positive will be lost? What makes you think that they must become like the west? I haven't said that. The west isn't all evil, anymore than Japan is all good. I would argue for both to become better. And frankly, on the subject of Unions, I consider that better than not having them at all. At worst, I'd call them a necessary evil. Why? Because humans are greedy, and 95% of the time, they will take advantage of you if they can. It doesn't matter whether they are American, Japanese, Indian, French, etc.

Basic human nature.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I'm afraid that's just your bias talking here. The way you describe it, it's as though a chief executive's performance is not closely monitored. He or she is assessed by a variety of factors: tangible ones, such as revenue, profit or returns on shareholder equity, among other performance indicators. Then there are the more intangible factors such as leadership, change or succession management and so on.

Well, you're shifting the goal posts here. Before, you just said a sports player, and now you're talking a sports manager. So, at least you agree that your earlier analogy was false.

And while you are closer now, you're still not quite there as far as analogy accuracy. There are millions more things that can affect a company that are outside of a CEO's control, as opposed to a sports team manager. A few bad rumors and a companies stock price can plummet. You get a bad batch of your product and people accidentally die because of it? Your stock price plummets. Employees embezzle and you lose vast amounts of money? Your can't remain as competitive and lose market share.

And that's the tip of the iceberg. Sure, a CEO has some control over the company, but look at Steve Ballmer. He's an absolute moron("I'm gonna fuckin' kill Google! *tosses chair*), and yet Microsoft is still showing a lot of profit that has nothing to do with him. He's actually cost the company money, and pushed bad products (do you own a Zune?), and yet he's still CEO and Microsoft still has a strong stock price.

Moreover, you've skipped the most important question I asked: Should there be an upper bound on the value of "talent"? Is there ever a point where a person's pay grows so large that it becomes obscene? And, if such a point exists, who decides when enough is enough?

Mostly because I didn't feel it was relevant, especially in regards to the thread. The true answer would take a bit to explain, but perhaps I can hit a few points and hope no further explanation is needed. I do feel there should be an upper limit, but with the way the global market is set up, it practically encourages this obscene salary/bonus situation.

#1. With the stock market the way it is, it encourages nanosecond trading. This means that people want a stock price to continually rise, and do it quickly, so only short-term success is rewarded. Thus, a CEO is pressured to build money quickly. Eliminate nanosecond trading, and limit the trading of a stock to once a day, or month, to encourage long-term growth. People will look more carefully before investing, and a single rumor that drops a stock price by 10 points won't be a big issue (it'll rebound).

#2. Because stock price can fluctuate so rapidly, CEO's know they have to show growth, and know they can be shown the door in a year, so it's not worth it to become a CEO unless you make tons of money so that you can live decently. If I am only going to be employed a year because too many things can happen that are out of my control and I can find myself sacked at any time, then I want enough money to make it worth it.

That's why CEO salaries have ballooned so much. Companies feel that they have to offer outrageous sums of money to get a good CEO, because everyone else is. In addition to eliminating nanosecond trading, I'd probably introduce regulation that a CEO can't make more X times the pay of the least paid member of the company.

Oh yeah, also introduce fines that hurt, and Jail time for board members/CEOs of a company that break the law.

In order to tie this in to be on-topic, Japan would need similar regulation to reign in its companies; the end result being that its animators would become better off.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Well, you're shifting the goal posts here. Before, you just said a sports player, and now you're talking a sports manager. So, at least you agree that your earlier analogy was false.

Perhaps it's in the way I worded it, but you've misunderstood my point entirely. I'm saying that there is competition for "talent", which for some reason drives up its value indefinitely. The idea here being that sports stars and sports managers supposedly have some kind of "talent", which can be measured and thus rewarded. Occassionally, we get anomalies like Tiger Woods, who is certainly talented, but is his talent somehow worth US$1 billion? Whether or not we agree with that value, that's apparently what the market will bear, and so that's what Woods will get.

Similarly, chief executives are presumed to have some kind of "talent", which can also be measured and thus rewarded. And, similarly, among the pool of people deemed to be of CEO quality, there are those whose talents are perceived to worth millions more than others. Hence, they get whatever compensation the market would bear.

I raised the point to question the assertion that corporate greed alone is what drives up the salaries of a CEO, relative to the incomes of all the other employees in the company. We want to reward those who are better than others, in terms of skill or knowledge. And, without the incentive of better rewards, why would anyone bother to improve the quality of their skills or knowledge? (Other than out of professional pride; a romantic notion, but a man can't live on pride alone.)

Key to this equation is the requirement for such skills and knowledge to be rare and not disposable. Those whose skills have become commodities unfortunately no longer possess any competitive advantage, and hence find their wages constantly suppressed by those who can equal their labour for much less pay.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

There are millions more things that can affect a company that are outside of a CEO's control, as opposed to a sports team manager. A few bad rumors and a companies stock price can plummet. You get a bad batch of your product and people accidentally die because of it? Your stock price plummets. Employees embezzle and you lose vast amounts of money? You can't remain as competitive and lose market share.

I could argue that a CEO who isn't able to plug leaks and stop bad rumours; who isn't able to talk up the price of his company's stock or to improve the fundamentals of his business to increase his company's value; and who isn't able to hire employees of integrity that wouldn't embezzle the company's money, is an incompetent CEO, and thus not worth his millions. These are all tangible measures of his worth as a CEO. If he doesn't meet the grade, well, he gets the sack.

Precisely because these factors are very difficult to control, there is a need for exceptionally talented executives who are able to manage such business risks. And, for exceptional talent, we need to pay exceptional salaries. You pay peanuts, you get peanuts.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And that's the tip of the iceberg. Sure, a CEO has some control over the company, but look at Steve Ballmer. He's an absolute moron("I'm gonna fuckin' kill Google! *tosses chair*), and yet Microsoft is still showing a lot of profit that has nothing to do with him. He's actually cost the company money, and pushed bad products (do you own a Zune?), and yet he's still CEO and Microsoft still has a strong stock price.

No market is perfect. Every business entails risk. The higher the risk, the higher the potential rewards and, conversely, the higher the potential loss. That's basic economics. The CEOs of huge multinational corporations are supposed to be up to the task of managing huge global risks. As for Steve Ballmer, well, if Microsoft's directors decide he's still worth keeping on board, that's the risk they will take.

(If I don't remember wrongly, Microsoft's stock value has been overtaken by Apple's recently (source). That said, Microsoft's stock is still valuable presumably for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that its operating system remains dominant on most PCs throughout the world. That's good value worth investing in, for now.)

Of course, there's the problem of the "golden parachutes" you've brought up. And, yes, I could also agree that when you already have millions in the bank, thanks to months and years of cushy pay, the risk of failure personally faced by a CEO may, in fact, be markedly less than that faced by all other employees in the company, should the business fail because of the CEO's poor decisions.

I would heartily concede that all these are just some of the injustices created by free competition. But, frankly, I'm not sure about the extent to which we can address such injustices, without fundamentally undermining the incentive to work and improve.

==========

Now, to tie all of this back to the thread topic, suppose we implement the policy of minimum wage for Japanese animators. Suppose we also impose punitive tariffs on outsourced labour. We save the animators' jobs in the short run, true. But is all this necessarily good for the industry in the long run?

In effect, we would have distorted the market with artificial barriers to competition. We would manage to makes things cosier for animators, but because their life has become cosier, they may lose the incentive to innovate or, on a larger scale, reform and restructure their currently inefficient industry.

So, you see, balancing social justice with free competition is fraught with dilemmas and difficulties. It's not as straightforward as you make it out to be.

[karice67]

@Kajio
Regarding the first few paragraphs of your last post, let me repeat in bold. Some people can't even afford to own a computer, much less the internet connection to be able to learn how to publish and represent themselves. As you finally admitted a couple of posts ago, other solutions are needed. And believe it or not, that was my point in the first place.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Do you have sources to back that up? Because from everything I've read, most mangaka are living just as much in poverty as the animation staff. Only a few become superstars and actually make a decent living.

I never said that it was more than a few. I can't find any articles specifically talking about it, but with regards to an anime being commissioned, the licensing fees (for related products) that come with the huge merchandising drive are meant to be relatively substantial.

========
Re: the part time jobs etc
Just like voice actors (my friend saw one at a convenience store once), many do have part time jobs starting out. Apparently, "some Manga-ka even had a 9 to 5 job while they were starting out. Yoshizumi Wataru and Sakura Momoko were both secretaries during their first couple tankoubon ^_^"

=> evidence that most mangaka starting out don't earn enough to make a living, yes? But also that they know that much, and supplement their income if they have to.

I have already acknowledged that your proposal is better for mangaka in general - sure, I focused on their health, but I also noted that it could be successful for people like the Hetalia author. However, even if we put aside those that should just give up (which was my point in this particular argument - getting rid of excessive supply), it still doesn't do anything for those who can't afford the computer. And, since neither of us is willing (or has time) to do so, perhaps we should let someone else come up with the other prongs of your multi-pronged solution.

=========
Re: the poorly-paid animators

Originally Posted by Kaijo

It's part of shifting the balance of power from the bigger companies, to the artists.

Someone else mentioned it before. In-between animators are not considered the artists in this case, because they don't own those characters.

========
Re: CEOs, Japanese people and greed.
I've never denied that there could be corruption (I'm not going to repeat what I actually wrote a second time). But I will continue to refute that it's on the level that you seem to be suggesting. Please read the articles. Look further. Read about the people. Heck, move to Japan, actually live there, get to know some Japanese people, feel the relative safety and more. Then we'll talk.

========

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Before, you said that unions couldn't exist in Japan.

I did not.

Originally Posted by karice67

LOL...unions in Japan. The Japanese people need to change first.

I was merely trying to imply that they don't do much good because of the way the society is structured (which is linked to what the Japanese people are like).

=========

Originally Posted by Kaijo

What makes you think that anything positive will be lost? What makes you think that they must become like the west? I haven't said that.

(1 & 2) Because this is where the trend is heading, and it's already showing its effect in the younger generation. (3) I never said you did. That was my own opinion.

========
And lastly, following on from the "I never..."s or "I did not"s above: please stop trying to put words into my mouth.

[Triple_R]

This has been an excellent back-and-forth discussion, and I'm following it closely, but there's a couple arguments here that the pro sports fan in me just can't let slide.

TinyRedLeaf, your Tiger Woods and Sports Manager examples are way off the mark.

You make it sound like Tiger Woods made his fortune entirely from winnings earned on the PGA Tour, which is not even remotely the case. The overwhelming bulk of Woods' fortune was made on endorsement deals, and that has much more to do with marketability than being talented at golf, per se.

Yes, Tiger Woods' talent at golf is a major factor in how marketable he is, but it's far from the only factor. There's also the factor of how he turned that talent into being a winner at sports (and Tiger's recent lack of winning is going to really hurt his marketability if he doesn't turn it around soon). Furthermore, there's the factor that he presented a clean-cut family man image of himself, which appealed to a lot of people (which Tiger's recent problems in his personal life has undermined). Finally, Tiger's personal multiracial background is also very appealing to a lot of people, and gives him crossover appeal to numerous demographics. If Tiger had all of his golf talent, but was just another middle aged white guy, he probably wouldn't be half as marketable as he is. Jack Nicklaus was an outstanding golfer himself, but he never even came close to Tiger's level of marketability.

So, if your point is that "rare talent" = "obscene cash", Tiger isn't really a good example. It's his marketability, moreso than his talent in and of itself, that made Tiger most of his fortune.


As for Sports Managers and Head Coaches, many in fact are little more than sacrificial lambs when the team starts struggling. The very best of the best (Joe Torre in baseball, Scotty Bowman in hockey, Phil Jackson in basketball), tend to earn a lot and get credit, but the overwhelming majority are typically on a ever-revolving coaching carousel.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Perhaps it's in the way I worded it, but you've misunderstood my point entirely. I'm saying that there is competition for "talent", which for some reason drives up its value indefinitely. The idea here being that sports stars and sports managers supposedly have some kind of "talent", which can be measured and thus rewarded. Occassionally, we get anomalies like Tiger Woods, who is certainly talented, but is his talent somehow worth US$1 billion? Whether or not we agree with that value, that's apparently what the market will bear, and so that's what Woods will get.

Similarly, chief executives are presumed to have some kind of "talent", which can also be measured and thus rewarded. And, similarly, among the pool of people deemed to be of CEO quality, there are those whose talents are perceived to worth millions more than others. Hence, they get whatever compensation the market would bear.

I raised the point to question the assertion that corporate greed alone is what drives up the salaries of a CEO, relative to the incomes of all the other employees in the company. We want to reward those who are better than others, in terms of skill or knowledge. And, without the incentive of better rewards, why would anyone bother to improve the quality of their skills or knowledge? (Other than out of professional pride; a romantic notion, but a man can't live on pride alone.

Key to this equation is the requirement for such skills and knowledge to be rare and not disposable. Those whose skills have become commodities unfortunately no longer possess any competitive advantage, and hence find their wages constantly suppressed by those who can equal their labour for much less pay.

TripleR addressed a lot of the reasons you can't compare sports to CEOs, so I'll hit another thing:

Kenneth Lay received a salary and bonus of more than $8 million less than a year before Enron's collapse.

Whirlpool announced 4,700 layoffs in 1997 and gave CEO David Whitwam a 133 percent hike in total compensation. In January, Whirlpool announced additional layoffs of 3,200 workers.

American Express announced layoffs of 3,300 workers in 1997. CEO Harvey Golub reaped a 224 percent pay increase, bringing his total compensation to $33.4 million.

Wall Street executive Julian Robertson says it well: "Everybody here is overpaid, knows they are overpaid and is determined to continue to be overpaid." Right now, taxpayers help pay for outrageous CEO salaries because corporations can deduct them as a business expense. Wow, that's pretty nice; so the higher you make a CEO salary, the bigger your deduction! Think that has any incentive?

Economists Xavier Gabaix of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Augustin Landier of the Stern School of Business found that the best chief executives do not seem to have much more talent than other chief executives in what they define as the top 250. By their calculations, replacing the No. 250 chief executive with the No. 1 will increase the value of a company by only 0.014 percent.

In short, there is very little in the way of talent considered where CEO's are concerned. It may have started that way, but human greed took over. THey could get away with making more, so they did. Even at companies that fail, such as Enron, AIG, or Goldman Sachs, the upper crust walk away with billions, getting golden parachutes even if they are booted. Why would you pay someone billions for failing? That doesn't seem to indicate that they are seeking to reward talent at all.

I could argue that a CEO who isn't able to plug leaks and stop bad rumours; who isn't able to talk up the price of his company's stock or to improve the fundamentals of his business to increase his company's value; and who isn't able to hire employees of integrity that wouldn't embezzle the company's money, is an incompetent CEO, and thus not worth his millions. These are all tangible measures of his worth as a CEO. If he doesn't meet the grade, well, he gets the sack.

And walks away with a golden parachute, even if he is sacked. But a CEO isn't a superhuman. I could start a "Tiny Red Leaf is a child molester" rumor right now, get a number of people to believe it... and what are you going to do? A CEO can't quash rumors. Hell, Fox News makes a living creating and rumors and keeping them alive. Remember Obama's Birth Certificate? See the controversy they're making of the Ground Zero Mosque?

Do you really think one person has the power to quash rumors? And yes, the market is volatile, and companies can lose millions from a few bad rumors. Ever watch the movie "Wall Street"?

Precisely because these factors are very difficult to control, there is a need for exceptionally talented executives who are able to manage such business risks. And, for exceptional talent, we need to pay exceptional salaries. You pay peanuts, you get peanuts.

Forgive me for saying so, but your words are sounding suspiciously like CEO greed excuses. "We have to pay these people billions to remain competitive!"

Japanese companies, like others, are watching the US and taking notice, finding it easy to start mimicking the fleecing.

Now, to tie all of this back to the thread topic, suppose we implement the policy of minimum wage for Japanese animators. Suppose we also impose punitive tariffs on outsourced labour. We save the animators' jobs in the short run, true. But is all this necessarily good for the industry in the long run?

In effect, we would have distorted the market with artificial barriers to competition. We would manage to makes things cosier for animators, but because their life has become cosier, they may lose the incentive to innovate or, on a larger scale, reform and restructure their currently inefficient industry.

So, you see, balancing social justice with free competition is fraught with dilemmas and difficulties. It's not as straightforward as you make it out to be.

You're trying to sow doubt. "Hmm, are you sure we really want to do this? It could be scary. I don't think we want to take that risk... we should just allow the current situation to remain; I think that's best for the CEOs, err, I mean everyone."

As the parent post pointed out, we supposedly screwed in the long run if we do nothing. Therefore, we have nothing to lose by trying something new. And by the way, tariffs do work. They've been in use for hundreds of countries, for hundreds of years, and succeed in protecting industry. The incredibly high sugar tariff in the US protects the corn industry, for example.

So they DO work.

Originally Posted by karice67

@Kajio
Regarding the first few paragraphs of your last post, let me repeat in bold. Some people can't even afford to own a computer, much less the internet connection to be able to learn how to publish and represent themselves. As you finally admitted a couple of posts ago, other solutions are needed. And believe it or not, that was my point in the first place.

Are you sure you know Japanese culture? You aren't aware of internet cafes? They are a big thing in Asian countries. And even if someone can't afford a computer, they usually have friends or relatives that do. But if your argument is "we shouldn't do this because *some* people don't have a computer!" Well, that's not a very good reason.

And, since neither of us is willing (or has time) to do so, perhaps we should let someone else come up with the other prongs of your multi-pronged solution.

Speak for yourself. If someone wants me to create a website and upload their work, I'll be more than glad to help. Hell, netbooks are dropping below $200, and if I hear of an artist, and see that their work is good, I'd be willing to buy a sub $200 netbook for them.

But as far as prongs go:
-unions
-tariffs
-mangaka free publishing on web
-more regulation of animation companies to prevent artist/contractor abuse and clean up corruption

And I'll feel free to add more to this, as people get ideas. Feel free to add yours.

Re: the poorly-paid animatorsSomeone else mentioned it before. In-between animators are not considered the artists in this case, because they don't own those characters.

Owning the characters or not, does not mean they aren't an artist. Thousands of people draw and sell doujins of characters they don't own, and they are artists in the very definition of the term.

Re: CEOs, Japanese people and greed.
I've never denied that there could be corruption (I'm not going to repeat what I actually wrote a second time). But I will continue to refute that it's on the level that you seem to be suggesting. Please read the articles. Look further. Read about the people. Heck, move to Japan, actually live there, get to know some Japanese people, feel the relative safety and more. Then we'll talk.

Saying something without actually saying something. You keep assuming I know nothing about Japan, when I've actually spent a great deal of time with Japanese people.

But at least you acknowledge there is corruption, which is part of the problem I outlined before as one preventing animators from making a decent living, so glad you agree.^^

I did not. I was merely trying to imply that they don't do much good because of the way the society is structured (which is linked to what the Japanese people are like).

Your quote, "LOL...unions in Japan. The Japanese people need to change first" certainly made it seem like you didn't think unions could happen in Japan. I think any reasonable person would agree with me that you seemed to find it extremely funny that unions couldn't exist in Japan unless the people changed. But even if it wasn't your original intent, or you're just shifting the goal posts, the article in the first post of this thread has pretty much said there is a union and it seems to be working so far, although it's in its early stages.

Perhaps you don't know Japan as well as you think?