<p>Well, this article is worth a read (excerpt):<br>
"They called it the zombie walk. After midnight, when the coffee and Red Bull had worn off, Sari Gennis and her co-workers would take a brisk stroll to make it through their graveyard shift. For four months straight, often seven days a week, a team of visual effects artists worked 12-hour shifts to complete the 3-D conversion of movie blockbuster "Titanic." "If I continue these kind of hours, it could kill me," the visual effects veteran said. </p>
<p>Visual effects is a booming business. Big-budget movies such as "Avatar," "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" and "Tron: Legacy" can spend as much as $50 million on computer graphics that drive the action and ticket sales. But the artists who create the effects, crouched over computers using software to create digital images, complain they're often employed in electronic sweatshops, work inhuman schedules and without health insurance or pensions..."</p>
<p>I take back what I said about reading readers’ comments being worth looking at. (The first few this morning were on point, then it turned to mindless ranting.) Nevermind. </p>
<p>But the article is provocative. I’d be interested in hearing views from those of you knowledgeable about the Visual FX industry.</p>
<p>Yes, the general consensus has been that things have been in a downward spiral for a few years now. Short contracts, no overtime, long hours and few if any benefits are par for the course. Add to that outsourcing, tax incentive chasing and the lack of any long term stability and it’s a wonder there are still any survivors in vfx. </p>
<p>Blogs such as vfxsoldier, tag and cgtalk follow these trends in the industry.</p>
<p>This is fairly specific to the vfx industry. Some vfx / animation studios are unionized which helps with the unpaid overtime, portable health benefit and retirement plan issues. </p>
<p>But to answer your question, It really depends on the industry. Scientific visualization, medical visualization, toys, and arch viz are some industries where the 3d jobs are more stable with regular hours.</p>
<p>One thing this article doesn’t dicuss is PAY! If they can make enough money, they can set up their own fringe benefits that probably are as good or better than that of many companies.</p>
<p>Yes but your salary is going to have to be pretty high, speaking as someone who’s done that. Carrying your own health insurance alone can be a huge financial cost so you want to have all your cards and expenses in line before negotiating that independent contractor salary.</p>
<p>The problem with these FX/animation jobs is one similar to other art jobs that become seen as a desirable kind of employment with possibility of large salaries at the end (re the video production I mentioned). Once they become what we used to refer to as “glamour” jobs meaning highly desirable for either the cache and/or possibilities down the road the labor pool increases. You suddenly have a large pool of highly talented people trying for the same number of jobs, hence lower salaries, unpaid overtime, no benefits. Everyone is willing to work very very hard for very little just to get a foot in the door.</p>
<p>Unless there’s a union involved the companies are willing to take advantage of this talented, dedicated labor pool holding the carrot of possible plenty in a few years out. It’s not that it’s not worth doing if you can afford it but it’s a not exactly a new phenomenon. This is why you’ll find that most technical areas that are established have unions, which are usually brought in after everyone is burnt out and sick of working for zippo in a new area. Then it gets hard to get entrance into the union.</p>
<p>However with the pace of new technology being developed whether in film or any other industry this generation is going to have to keep on their feet moving with the changes. There probably will be little of the static-ness in any of the technical fields, film or otherwise, that used to exist. You used to get about 20 years in before something big changed everything. I doubt that time frame will exist any more.</p>
<p>I take it back. The article cited a guy who was making $1,000 a day! For three months, this would be $84,000. He could work like a dog, working 6 months a year and make $168K. In addition, there are some great tax advantages for being an independent contractor. Regardless of the hours, it doesn’t sound like a bad gig to me.</p>
<p>$1000 a day, 7 days a week, for up to 120 hrs a week sitting in front of a computer trying to pound out shots week after week for 3.5 months straight does not sound like any sort of life to me. Especially if one has any friends, family or loved ones in the picture. It’s no wonder the guy had health problems. Recovery from RSI, lower back problems, neck problems, etc can be seriously expensive even with insurance. RSI, hand, neck and back injuries are common enough in the industry with regular hours. But these studios usually don’t care, with all the fresh blood pumped out by the schools there’s always an eager replacement pounding on the doors to get in. Also I’m guessing the $1000 is due to double overtime as per ca law?</p>
<p>The nomadic nature of vfx can mean one is working only 6-9 months out of the year, sometimes moving from state to state or these days country to country. Easier when you are single and free, tough when you have families and kids. </p>
<p>Starting salaries range from $35-$60k or so, and as an independent contractor doesnt one pay employee and employer taxes?</p>
<p>I’m no tax expert, but we recently looked into this with older D. Yes, independent contractors must pay withholding, FICA, etc. and should purchase health and possibly liability insurance and “pay” themselves contributions to retirement accounts and/or similar benefits. Independent contractors can submit work-related deductions, but first have to make enough money to qualify for them! I <em>think</em> an IC needs to figure about 27-30% more salary to cover the basic taxes and break even.</p>
<p>Yes, you must pay all your insurances, social security, state withholding, etc. so you need to calculate that into your negotiations. Please keep in mind that carrying your own health insurance even for just one person can run around $1,500-2,000 or more a month, look into it carefully . You must pay your IRS quarterly and be consistent about it or you’ll increase your audited chances. Also if you are taken work related deductions there are new rules as I remember how you can work as an independent contractor. I think since I did it you now have to be able to prove that a certain portion of your work was done at home or not at one particular business. I think this was done to do away with employers allowing employees who were working only for them for 40 or more hours to be off the books as contractors. You can’t work for one person on-site anymore and declare yourself an indepdent contractor as I remember it. This is where working in arts related fields and needing a good business head come into play. I think that 30% figure as what I used, might need to be higher now as insurance costs especially have gone up.</p>
<p>Taxguy:
Those tax advantages are still good if you can verify that you are working off-site a certain portion of the time. But at $86,000, the costs of carrying your own insurances, taxes, etc. can be pretty high. The danger is that some don’t set the money aside and take care of business and I’ve known people who have ended up with big IRS problems. You must be very disciplined about the business end of it.</p>
<p>"You can’t work for one person on-site anymore "
Actually I don’t know if that was ever allowed but I know that some years ago the did some re-definition as the IRS felt there was some clarification needed and they tightened up the ability to declare yourself independent. Also as I understand it you can’t charge overtime as an IC so you need to really calculate that hourly carefully.
This is the best site I’ve found that explains how this work.
[Is</a> Your Independent Contractor Really Your Employee? :: WRAL Tech Wire](<a href=“http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/opinion/story/1680383/]Is”>Story Named Senior Vice President at RTI International | WRAL TechWire)</p>
<p>Honestly, back in the day, I worked those hours or worse as a young attorney. The pay was not as good as you are quoting, although there were benefits. The secretaries who matched our hours took home more money than we did because they were paid hourly and got overtime. We worked like dogs and for what carrot? Maybe 10% made partner. This just sounds like the same type of thing. If you get to do what you love, then maybe it is worthwhile. It wasn’t for me; now I am a personal chef!</p>
<p>Artsmarts, yes, they must be disciplined. However,86K every three months doesn’t sound like a bad gig. A person can work half a year and make over 170K. Frankly, you can buy your own insurance, take a lot of deductions for car and food and even travel and still make more money than most people, and that’s working half a year! Where do I sign up?</p>
<p>I agree it sounds good but as with most things I suspect there’s some information missing here. First you’re assuming that one can easily move from one job to another, usually there’s gaps sometimes quite lengthy between jobs. So you don’t always get to pick and choose how much you work in a year. Also it depends on where you need to live to have the contacts, etc in order to keep work. If you need to be in NY you’re going to spend around $3,000 and up for a studio apartment which is $36,000 per year right off the bat. It sounds good but usually when something sounds that good there’s a hitch or two. Also usually free lancers base their stated (to friends and people they meet at the neighborhood bar) salary on the best paying job they’ve had that year. There are probably many making less but yes, if in fact this is good money. But like I say if you’re living in Springfield, MO or some such smaller town even $179,000 sounds like good money and it is. But your buying power in NYC or LA isn’t the same so while it’s a lot of money even in NYC or LA it’s not the same living in quieter less expensive places and someone starting out would need to be in a hub in order to keep and grow contacts. And of course there’s the question as to whether anyone can survive working 6 straight months at 120 hours a week, that’s pretty problematic. I’ve done 80 hour weeks for 3 weeks or so but by then I’m either sick or brain dead . . . well actually truth be told I started out brain dead anyway so that didn’t matter! LOL. I think though that this isn’t quite as cushy as it sounds. Picture working 120 hours a week for 6 months, that’s pretty damaging to mental and physical health.</p>
<p>Of course one could do it until you have a name then work from a less expensive location and cut back on hours if you are in demand. But also you turn someone down more than twice and they probably won’t come back even if you’re superman or woman.</p>