Why don’t you two just exchange phone numbers…
I say get a room.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

It’s almost exactly what I just said about Clear Channel and the other mega-owners. (scroll down to “Correspondence Corner”.)

“And if you want proof, I’m willing to back it up with a $5000 bet, that I could find an acceptable full time salaried job somewhere here in this country with in 120 days. We’ll each put the $5k in an escrow account, winner take all.”

Very possibly you could. However, that MIGHT be because you have a well-established network of contacts who would hire you. I’m not saying you DO, just that you MIGHT and that would, of course, sway things. It would be more interesting if we could take a person chosen at random, someone with extensive on-air experience and see if that person could find a job that paid a previously agreed-upon amount or not.

There’s also another little problem with the parameters of this wager. What, exactly, constitutes “an acceptable full-time salaried job?” Honestly, I’m not trying to be a weasel here, but that’s a pretty vague phrase. “Acceptable” to whom? Someone, somewhere, MIGHT consider eight bucks an hour a decent salary. Hey, it beats McDonalds in a lot of markets and you don’t have to lean over a fry basket. OK, I’m exaggerating, but you get the point.

To conduct this test the fairest, most accurate way, we’d have to agree upfront on what an “acceptable salary” was, then either have several people attempt to find one at once (not revealing that they were part of a challenge, of course) or do it with one person, then repeat the test several times.

In all seriousness, if I had a spare 5 grand, I’d love to test this. It would be a fascinating experiment, if properly conducted. Grrr, it sucks to be poor at times.

As for Radio and Records’ annual salary review, I confess to not having seen that in a while. From what you say, though, it strikes me that a 20 percent increase isn’t all that impressive. Consider: there’s been a slow rate of inflation during the period you cite, seven years. Add up a couple of percent per year and you’re pretty damn close (or even slightly over) 20 percent. In other words, even according to what you say, salaries are only just about keeping pace with inflation.

I’d be curious to know what Radio and Records uses as their methodology; how many stations are surveyed, in how many markets and so on. There are “scientific” polls and “unscientific” polls. I’m not sure which Radio and Records is publishing.

You’re absolutely correct that radio isn’t the only industry that has forced people out, but two wrongs (or three or five hundred for that matter) don’t make a right.

A few posts back, you said something about radio now being a “big money business” (or words to that effect, I couldn’t find the exact quote quickly). I submit that one big reason for that is that some of the major players (Clear Channel, etc.) overpaid for properties because they wanted to become a monopoly, or as much of one as they could, and that rasied their debt. They then did what a lot of big corporations do when they overspend: canned employees to cut costs.

The big media companies also seem to be more interested in their stockholders than in their listeners or viewers. Investors are understandably interested in a profit, leading the corporations to promise eternal annual increases. That clearly cannot continue forever, but in their quest for them, they cut labor forces and salaries wherever possible (not in the highest ranks of management, though, of course.)

Something you said that I managed to overlook for some reason:

“Again I ask you, would you rather be one of the three people who made only $800 a month or be the one jock who did a live shift and a couple of voicetracked shifts and made $1600 a month. I know what my answer would be……and that one station just saved between $1500 and $2000 a month.”

Well, duh, of course I would rather be making money and surviving! Who wouldn’t? The problem is that the guy who is making the $1600/month is not helping to pay for groceries or the rent for the other people. They don’t cease to exist when they become unemployed. They continue to have needs. The needs just aren’t funded. How is that good for America? That sounds like Ye Olde Trickle Down Theory to me.