MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Cost of Living's Affect on Production  (Read 6117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2015, 16:23 »
+3
Cheaper for us with our wages maybe. It's not cheaper for the people living there. If you make 150 a month and your rent is 100 you live a hard life paying bills and feeding a family off the other 50


« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2015, 17:27 »
+2
A Russian stock photo agent told me recently that a Russian photographer could live and support a family very comfortably on 50,000 roubles a month. At todays currency exchange that works out to about $886 per month or $10,632 per year.

The questions are: (1) Do these figures seem accurate? (2) Are figures for other Eastern European and former Soviet nations about the same or higher/lower? (3) What would be the average for your country?

you won't go far with 1000$/month anywhere in Russia, especially in big cities like Moscow where the cost of living is higher than London !

as for Eastern Europe that's a whole different ballgame.
Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Ukraine are still quite cheap and 1000$ is OK if you're single but you will struggle if you've a family and a big home.

« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2015, 18:16 »
+2
... but the further east you do, the cheaper the life gets.

This is a simplistic view. You should have said the "harder the life gets"

In those countries there is virtually no middle class. You have very few rich people and almost everybody else is poor.
This is why most of the top technology (including good photo equipment) can only be afforded by the tiny fraction of very rich people with absolutely no money problems.
Good technology cannot be afforded by the masses, so the prices are kept up for only those who can afford it. You will be surprised to see that good TVs, good cameras, good cars, etc are more expensive in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe (and definitely more expensive than in US).
So purchasing the gear required for decent quality photography requires huge sacrifices from a regular photographer. You should factor this in when you make your statements.

You are right, it was a generalization and simplistic, too. It's not absolute all the way from Prague to Ulan Bator, there are a few exceptions, notably Moscow, and as you say, the further east you go, the harder the life gets - in general.
However, I know some photographers in eastern Europe whose living expenses, model fees, and studio rents are less than half of West European prices, and these guys know how to buy their cameras and computers from the same mail order outfits and for the same prices as their West European counterparts. So, everybody's mileage will vary. Enjoy the summer.

EDIT:
I must confess, that I also exaggerated (in my other post), about all seniors willing to go to war for that park pass. Maybe just the younger ones.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 21:51 by LesPalenik »

« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2015, 19:39 »
0
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.

I agree with that, Les, and in fact I make verrrry good use of the lifetime Senior Pass I bought for $10.

However the time and gas it takes to get to those widespread national parks and other public lands, and the price of staying in those areas (with their often-$$$ accommodations), undercuts the cost benefits. My artist husband and I own a motor home, so we can eat, sleep, and hang out quite reasonably in places like that. But even for us, there's a cost to get there.

Hi Martha,

How I wish, I could buy that $10 lifetime pass, but in my case, it's too late to apply for the green card.
Speaking about green - that's how most our parks look, interlaced with swimmable sparkling blue waters (well, for the few short months, anyway). That's the part I like about parks here.

WeatherENG

« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2015, 20:18 »
+1
Good topic, keep in mind it's a free trade economy, those who can run their businesses in areas where costs are lower will have an advantage, not different than the big car companies leaving Ontario Canada for Mexico, Mexico has a big advantage, same with China.

Not much one can do about it sadly, we are losing jobs here daily to area where costs of living, wages, etc are lower.

http://www.pond5.com/artist/WeatherENG

« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2015, 22:33 »
+3
The cost of doing without is about the same everywhere.

Still, just in the USA the cost for housing can vary very wildly. 

Also what standard of living people expect to be able to afford varies greatly around the world.

« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2015, 00:38 »
+1
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
Our National Parks are free for everyone, though admittedly nothing like as varied.

What about for "commercial" photography.

« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2015, 02:22 »
+3
Wow. People living in countries with lower cost of living can compete at lower prices than people from countries with higher cost of living?

Yes, that's a theory that certainly needs more investigation before it can be sold as an thorough analysis for $2 per viewer.

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2015, 06:16 »
0
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
Our National Parks are free for everyone, though admittedly nothing like as varied.

What about for "commercial" photography.

No charge for stills or normal video.
I couldn't find anything about big blockbuster type films where they'd want the public kept out of an area.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2015, 10:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2015, 09:57 »
+3
I can only comment at my going rate of $150 an hour, due to my cost of living.

Ditto.  This is my current portrait rate in the Northeast.  I'll sometimes discount that hourly rate if the people will sign MR's allowing for stock image sales.  I'm also learning that editing time eats up most of this, as for every hour of shooting you can easily spend 2-4 additional hours editing, depending on the shoot.  From now on I'll only be promising a limited number of images to the client, per hour commissioned.  My last 2 hour shoot ended up costing me way too much in edit time, because I'm too generous with the quantity of files delivered.  No more TFCD shoots for me.  I just can't afford to do that anymore, with the way things are ever-decling.

To earn $150/hr for the weekly time I spend shooting/editing/uploading to microstock; yeah right.  Not even close.  Maybe if I were to work just a tiny portion of the week ;) 

Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level.  That's if you don't have a car payment, and just a rent or mortgage.  Moving somewhere with a lower cost of living would give many of us a dramatic raise in income.  Easier said than done.

« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2015, 14:07 »
-1
However, if you are a landscape photographer, nothing beats the America the Beautiful - National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass in USA - Lifetime Pass for $10. Seniors from all other countries would go to war for such a deal.
Our National Parks are free for everyone, though admittedly nothing like as varied.

What about for "commercial" photography.

no problem if you're just shooting the scenery, battlefields & monuments, or editorial shots of tourists, but you need to get a permit to shoot commercials, etc -- mt rainier eg, is often used since it's easily accessible

« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2015, 16:25 »
+2
Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level. 

Is it worth it ? you could live fairly well with 15K or 20K anywhere in south east asia surrounded by hot girls and cheap booze.


ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2015, 16:28 »
+7
Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level. 

Is it worth it ? you could live fairly well with 15K or 20K anywhere in south east asia surrounded by hot girls and cheap booze.
Not all of us are particularly interested in hot girls or cheap booze. Just sayin'

« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2015, 16:43 »
0
Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level. 

Is it worth it ? you could live fairly well with 15K or 20K anywhere in south east asia surrounded by hot girls and cheap booze.
Not all of us are particularly interested in hot girls or cheap booze. Just sayin'

Yeah, Mrs. ArenaCreative might have something to say about all that.  ;)

« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2015, 17:36 »
+4
Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level. 

Is it worth it ? you could live fairly well with 15K or 20K anywhere in south east asia surrounded by hot girls and cheap booze.
Not all of us are particularly interested in hot girls or cheap booze. Just sayin'

Seems like everywhere I've gone in my life has cold women and hot beer. I must be doing something wrong.

« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2015, 22:57 »
0
I live in East Asia, and while the cost of living is definitely cheaper than my home country of South Africa, the demand for East Asian scenes and models seems to be proportionally less.

Some of the biggest sellers in stock photo and video reside in Cape Town, so perhaps there is a lot to be said about being in the right location.

« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2015, 11:59 »
+3
Hi everyone. Im mostly a reader than a writer on the forums, but this is a topic that a see very frequently, people in developing countries complaining about how the "third world" is taking the bread out of their mouths on micro stock. Im currently live in Colombia, and despite micro is just a eventual hobbie for me , I been close to this for a few years and I believe that theres isnt easier in one place or the other. It is true that less develop countries have a lower cost of life, but the income per/h is lower swell. For example , here in Bogota, you can live well with 1.000 usd per month, but for example basic salary is about 300 usd per month only, most professionals here earn about 700 usd per month. Other countries like ecuador, peru or bolivia are even cheaper. You can said that with an income doing micro stock of 1000 per month you can live on one of this countries very well, but there are facts that made this very difficult.First, to make a decent living here, you have to work more hours per week ,sometimes have other jobs aside of your day job, so there is no so much time off left to do micro, shooting , keywording, uploading and etc. In the case you have the time, all the equipment are more expensive, like camera, lenses, lights and gear to do it properly, because of import taxes and other. You can have the time and equipment, but still you need to have an space to do it like a garage or basement , or rent an studio. More additional cost, plus the expenses of production like paying models and transportation. In developing countries you can use your credit card and afford all of this at the beginning and pay later, in third world countries credit work very differently , so you have to gathered all the cash for equipment and production  first ,and after start to shoot and upload and wait for the income to come without leaving your day job.

Like any other business microstock requires and investment of money and time to make it work, in develop countries is easier to have this 2 resources and produce more but this is not enough to live well, in less develop countries is much more difficult to get money and time to do it, but at the end , if you build a large enough portfolio, you can make a living. So this is very relative. I personally think that the problem is photography stock business, everyday there is more images, more photogs, more agencies and the demand remains quite the same, so it is a logical consequence that the piece of the pie for every photog will be less and less, no matter where you are.


« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2015, 12:29 »
0
Possible to support a family decently on $30K in the US???

In some places. Small towns, rural areas. And you'd get some government assistance with health care, food and so on with that amount. It really depends on where you live. Cost of living varies as much from one state to another as it does from the USA to Eastern Europe. For example, it costs about twice as much to live in some areas in California compared to where I live in Georgia. I live in the suburbs of a major city in the Southeast. I can get a nice, 3,000 square foot house in a good school district for about $260,000. (We're supposed to close on it at the end of the month). The same house in suburban San Francisco or Los Angeles would cost $750,000 or more.

So, I would say you'd need $4,000 to $5,000 a month in cheaper areas (Southeast, Midwest) of the US to support a family, unless you can live in a small town far from an urban area where the housing prices are rock bottom. To live in the Northeast or Pacific area, I'd say you'd need $7,000 to $8,000 a month. To live in New York City and San Fran, even more. I couldn't even speculate.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2015, 12:35 by robhainer »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2735 Views
Last post December 23, 2007, 02:19
by Lee Torrens
7 Replies
3928 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 20:11
by Freedom
Cost of Living round the world

Started by michealo « 1 2  All » Off Topic

48 Replies
10676 Views
Last post January 12, 2011, 02:34
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
1476 Views
Last post September 06, 2013, 17:06
by Ron
25 Replies
3679 Views
Last post May 22, 2014, 10:46
by OM

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results