Global economy
I have come to realize that the powerhouse economical force that is these United States of America is dying. It' s not subtle either. As I'm selling on Ebay I find that people are buying my stuff for $7 and paying $30 for shipping. I'm making our post office rich.
But then, shouldn't these foreign bidders be wiped out by American bidders who can afford to pay $10, given that their shipping cost will only be like $5 or even $10? No.
Few Americans can afford to pay $10 for some luxury item like terrain for a wargame. Thank God I allow for international bidders. They're keeping my baby in diapers.
However, note: this means something. When the only people who can shop the American market on Ebay are people who have to be exhorbant shipping fees, that's a bit scary. Americans shouldn't be the broke bastards of the world economy. Luckily though, once we become a third world nation, we may be getting all of our factories back.
But then, shouldn't these foreign bidders be wiped out by American bidders who can afford to pay $10, given that their shipping cost will only be like $5 or even $10? No.
Few Americans can afford to pay $10 for some luxury item like terrain for a wargame. Thank God I allow for international bidders. They're keeping my baby in diapers.
However, note: this means something. When the only people who can shop the American market on Ebay are people who have to be exhorbant shipping fees, that's a bit scary. Americans shouldn't be the broke bastards of the world economy. Luckily though, once we become a third world nation, we may be getting all of our factories back.
posted by Monstro D. Whale at
9:07 PM
4 Comments:
I've been noticing this as well. Apparently there are too many creative people in the US and not enough people with disposable income to buy the creative products. I spoke last summer with a ceramicist who depended entirely on tourist income to support her business. She said that since Bush has been in office, she's lost most of her income, and her business was on the verge of going under. The methodical destruction of the middle class is resulting in less middle class income being spent on luxury goods. Let's face it; there aren't enough rich people to buy the huge number of goods that are produced by creative people. Corporate policies since the mid-nineties have been to reduce the pay scale for lower and middle management, instead of raising pay to keep up with inflation. We are now at a point where lower management is paid below the poverty line, and middle management is usually paid just above the poverty line. Lower management has also been moved to hourly wages. In addition to this, many management positions have been eliminated. Somebody at the top is making more money because of this, but the United States as a whole is suffering greatly. In this day and age, one would be a fool to pursue art or writing as a viable career path. The only way you can pursue creative activities is as a hobby, in addition to your full-time job. That said, only the children of rich people can afford to pursue creative activities as a full-time job, since they are the only ones with financial backing to keep them afloat when they don't make sales. Perhaps the goal is indeed to squeeze the middle and lower classes out of creative endeavors, so that the children of rich people can pretend like their art has meaning and substance.
You sure those war games aren't simply more popular overseas? Or that the materials you use aren't more readily available here? Or that your particular craftsmanship isn't drawing international attention?
I'm not sure if I agree with you guys on this. At some point, artists (specifically, those who intend to bring creativity to the marketplace in order to make a living) must bear a personal responsibility for the commercial success, or lack thereof, of their creative efforts, no?
It may be true that the rich are afforded certain luxuries, but (1) no good will come from obsessing about that; and (2) so are the poor (afforded certain luxuries -- e.g., "financial backing to keep them afloat when they don't make sales"). More explanation of those things:
1. It shouldn't matter because an artist should, IMHO, be solely concerned with his or her personal statement to the world, not with what anyone else, rich or poor, is doing.
2. The poor creatives, in probably just as many cases, have it easier in many ways than the middle class. Consider JK Rowling, for example -- a former welfare case. Without welfare, we'd have no Harry Potter, and she wouldn't be richer than the Queen. (Not that this should upset anyone, either, per rule #1, above.)
It may be tougher for the average middle-class Joe, but the reward is more ownership in one's success when and if it comes. And,it'll come if your work is original, good, and marketed well (and, because of the sheer number of creative people in the world, a little lucky).
I mean, sure, it's frustrating to see the Paris Hiltons of the world be handed millions for no apparent reason, but it's still largely a free market out there.
In short, I don't know why Europeans fork over $37 for something Americans apparently find too expensive at $10, but I suspect the answer is highly complex rather than simplistic.
Nnnhh...maybe, but you folks are giving me more credit than I deserve. Artist? I'm a junk pedlar, plain and simple. It looks good, sure, but I'm not making a "statement" aside from maybe, hide your lead soldiers here.
I do think it's the weak dollar that's doing my American business in, but let me be frank--I am doing all right with the Europeans, so, no complaints. My point is just that with all the crap we hear about how the rest of the world doesn't like us, I think it hits home when you find out that their money is worth twice as much as ours and that we're doing our darndest to keep sinking our money. Ever play Axis and Allies? You kill Germany by making them go broke. That's how you win.
Now, an addendum. I do have American customers. Many of them are in the military. What does that say. Disposable income with nothing to spend it on; I make the best Tomb Worlds in all of Iraq.
My main point, which probably got lost in there somewhere, is that the market is swamped when it comes to creative products. The average person knows nothing about quality, which I'm sure Monstro can attest to. So, absolutely, marketing attracts customers. Marketing also requires money.
Welfare is certainly not a viable option for anyone who hopes to buy a house in the future. It stays on your credit reports forever, I've heard.
The only artists that can afford to do art are the ones that have a sizeable income from another job, or a spouse who is paying the bills. A rare few manage to survive from their trade.
As with any business, part of that is due to marketing. Marketing is risky business. You can end up spending a lot on getting your name out there, then wind up with nothing to show for it.
Social networking has far more benefits when it comes to getting your works shown/read.
Less than 10% of novel manuscripts that are submitted are accepted due to the lack of a market. I would guess that at least half of the rejected manuscripts are 'enjoyable' enough that people would buy them if they had the disposable income.
Similarly, look at the plethora of prints available for sale at deviantart.com. A glut of variety.
Graphic artists (like somebody we know) are generally paid just above the minimum wage level. It's definitely work, and it just goes to show that creativity is actually poorly valued in our society.
Consider Thomas Kinkade, 'painter of light.' His works may have been original and beautiful when he first began painting them, but he has since devolved into a reproduction junkie. Thousands of 'paintings' that are actually sprayed onto the canvas using an industrial-grade printing machine are sold at painting prices. Cheap imitations. The guy is a marketing master without a doubt, and makes millions selling unoriginal, mass-produced 'art' to the world. His prints don't hold any value, and yet people still buy the junk.
Post a Comment
<< Home