Judging salaries [Archive]

ChaChaMama

12-22-2007, 09:44 AM

I see tangotime's point.

I doubt that judges at NDCA comps make nearly that much, and they have the--in my judgment--far more difficult job of watching many couples simultaneously, making rapid decisions about recalls and placements, standing on their feet for hours in often hyper air-conditioned ballrooms, shifts that may start early in the AM and/or end late in the PM, etc. And though you could consider the travel a plus, you could also consider it a minus (the joys of airline travel, unfamiliar beds, food of variable quality. Furthermore, for every comp in a highly desirable area like Hawaii or Orlando, there is one in a...let's just say "less obvious tourist destination.")

True, they don't have to offer television commentary and risk having their opinions critiqued by millions, BUT I still feel like DWTS is a relatively cushy assignment.

But hey, if they think they can negotiate even bigger and better deals for themselves, good for them! (I personally think there a very limited number of people who would be heart-broken to see Carrie Ann or Bruno replaced, but I could well be wrong.)

etp777

12-22-2007, 09:46 AM

Oh yeah, I don't fault them for getting whatever they can, just don't think their judging is X times better or harder than judging NDCA or closed comps.

swan

12-22-2007, 09:49 AM

(I personally think there a very limited number of people who would be heart-broken to see Carrie Ann or Bruno replaced, but I could well be wrong.)

Judging from the fact that now Carrie Ann & Bruno are having their own gig, I'd say they're probably much more popular than we think. Remember this is TV, not real dance competition. People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

tangotime

12-22-2007, 10:00 AM

Heres a fun idea-- if you had your choice-- who would be on your panel ?

bjp22tango

12-22-2007, 10:49 AM

We may not think much of Bruno's weekly alliterations and over the top gushing but he does add "color" to the evening for the general public.

The judges aren't being paid to judge, they're being paid to entertain and to influence the audience votes.

If Dancing with the Stars was set up and judged like a regular comp (ProAm) I have a feeling it would last all of one week. Ballroom Bootcamp was set up much more along those lines and only lasted one season.

tangotime

12-22-2007, 11:12 AM

We may not think much of Bruno's weekly alliterations and over the top gushing but he does add "color" to the evening for the general public.

I think everyone gets the wheres and the whys--- point being-- there are numerous people in the industry that have "color", that to my mind that are more deserving (I wonder how stage people would feel about us judging their performers ?-- and being the majority of the panel ! )----------

- We have OUR own gushers . ;)

ChaChaMama

12-22-2007, 11:16 AM

Judging from the fact that now Carrie Ann & Bruno are having their own gig, I'd say they're probably much more popular than we think. Remember this is TV, not real dance competition. People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

True! On the other hand, to me that only means

A) someone at ABC thinks they are popular, or

B) when this show was being planned, the possibility of the writers' strike was already looming, so another reality show seemed like a really good idea!

The show could be a total trainwreck. Then again, if the writers' strike continues (as looks likely), it will certainly get its best possible chance.

etp777

12-22-2007, 11:17 AM

Josh

12-22-2007, 01:25 PM

People do get ridiculous pay in that world!

(not really directed to you swan, just some general thoughts...)

It's only ridiculous when compared to "real jobs." If I'm a main character on a TV show that grosses the network $10M in advertising, then I think I deserve 2% of that... ($200,000). If someone really believes that their job is worth more, then must always ask themselves, "how much money am I making for the company?" Being on a team of 100 people that creates a $10M product is really not worth much more than $50,000 a year, is it? When a big name baseball player makes an average of $5,000 for every plate appearance or defensive play, he's worth every penny of that and more to the team--because people come to the game to watch HIM, they buy jerseys with HIS name on it, they buy products of advertisers because people tune in to watch HIM--thus HE brings in lots of $$$, and that's why he gets paid well.

Like I just said on another thread, if anyone thinks these jobs and people aren't worth the money, they should try to recruit thousands of people to watch him or her play sports, sing, dance, etc., and see how hard it is! People get paid either a flat fee, or for their performance. If you are salaried, then you have the "security" of a flat payrate, but you are also shooting yourself in the foot because you can work your hiney off and get paid nothing in return for it. In that case it's your fault. If you truly feel confident about your job performance at any job, you should insist on getting paid for results. Then, if you don't get paid much, it's still your fault. But if you get results, which is what most of these high-paid athletes get paid for, then you'll get paid well, in the same way that they do. (sure, they are salaried too, but they have a high salary because of high past performance) My point is that nobody pays a baseball player $5M in one year because they're pretty or a really nice person--they get paid because they are PHENOMENAL at what they do. And if YOU are phenomenal at what YOU do, then YOU will get paid well too! :-)

Laura

12-22-2007, 02:27 PM

If Dancing with the Stars was set up and judged like a regular comp (ProAm) I have a feeling it would last all of one week. Ballroom Bootcamp was set up much more along those lines and only lasted one season.
I agree...yet interestingly enough my ex-sister-in-law was an accountant for Ballroom Bootcamp's production company and told me that it was the most popular show on Lifetime (that was the cable network it was on, right) at the time.

Of course there is a massive difference between a narrow-focused cable network like Lifetime ("Television for Women") and one of the "big four" broadcast networks in terms of viewership and star power.

kimV6

12-22-2007, 05:22 PM

i stopped watching this season here because it got a little too ridiculous (though my parents started watching it, which i guess is representative of why it's always number one in the nielsen ratings). the judging really was what turned me off; my theory was that bruno just came in with a list of phrases that he was determined to use (e.g. "an extra set of batteries in your pants") and would just break it out whenever. also, carrie ann's previous credentials are that she was fook yu in goldmember... so i always laugh whenever i explain to someone how a comp works, and they respond "so it's not like in DWTS?"... though it would be funny if it did.
FWIW, i'm with Josh. the salaries are proportional to the money the show makes; i just saw a DDR knockoff for DWTS for the PS2 in a game store the other day. though this begs the question of what the pros are making...

ChaChaMama

12-22-2007, 08:09 PM

[quote=Josh;506448 And if YOU are phenomenal at what YOU do, then YOU will get paid well too! :-)[/quote]

I know some pretty phenomenal public school teachers and nurses who might disagree with you. ;)

I definitely concede your point about how ultra-talented ballplayers get their positions based on demonstrated achievements and don't just waltz (or free throw!) their way into them. I'm not 100% sure I'm convinced that is the logic that applies here. Remember, this is also a show that hired Samantha Harris.

FeetwithaBeat

12-23-2007, 01:43 AM

I agree...yet interestingly enough my ex-sister-in-law was an accountant for Ballroom Bootcamp's production company and told me that it was the most popular show on Lifetime (that was the cable network it was on, right) at the time.

Of course there is a massive difference between a narrow-focused cable network like Lifetime ("Television for Women") and one of the "big four" broadcast networks in terms of viewership and star power.

I believe "Ballroom Bootcamp" was on TLC - The Learning Channel. I'm sorry it only lasted one season, it was one of my favorites. Was nice to see REAL people go through the struggles and find the joy in learning.

Angel HI

12-23-2007, 02:17 AM

I see tangotime's point. (I personally think there a very limited number of people who would be heart-broken to see Carrie Ann or Bruno replaced, but I could well be wrong.)

Oh, please, do not omit Len...flip-flopping, inconsistent, and usually just plain annoying.

The judges aren't being paid to judge, they're being paid to entertain and to influence the audience votes.

And, that's the bottom line. It has been said here already, that this is television where most, even news, is hyped.

Angel HI

12-23-2007, 02:29 AM

...point being-- there are numerous people in the industry that have "color", that to my mind that are more deserving

Agreed. Having been in the entertainment field fro years, I would agree that many of teh street artists in most cities are better than the so-called celebs being paid these ridiculous salaries.

"real jobs."[/B]
If I'm a main character on a TV show ...they get paid because they are PHENOMENAL at what they do.

*my bold* The point is that it isn't any different from a real job. We all know that sports figures and Hollywooders are overrated and overpaid. Regardless of how good they are at their jobs, they get paid for "playing a game" or "playing a role"...both of which all of us did even as children.

I was in that business for a long time...did very well, but still believe that celeb salaries are BS. there's something wrong with a system when a ball player or waiter who "...isn't a doctor, but I play one on TV..." gets paid more than the president of the country.

P.S. And, these judges re the OP's question are NOT that great.

tangotime

12-23-2007, 09:32 AM

I definitely concede your point about how ultra-talented ballplayers get their positions based on demonstrated achievements .

The strange thing about sports ?-- they get paid on 1 known quantity ( what they did last yr ) and 1 unknown -- what they are projected to do .

If they were truly paid by game to game performance-- most of them couldnt pay their rent !! ( well, not quite )

Josh

12-23-2007, 04:58 PM

We all know that sports figures and Hollywooders are overrated and overpaid. Regardless of how good they are at their jobs, they get paid for "playing a game" or "playing a role"...both of which all of us did even as children.

(sorry for the long post, and this isn't all directed at you angel, and please don't read it in a negative tone, it's just a little upfront and should be read with an open mind)

"overrated" and "overpaid" are very subjective, and the question is, in comparison to what? Based on what standard?

If I hired my friend Joe to stand next to me at a baseball convention with a cap on, and charged attendees $30 per autograph, I'd make $0 that day, no question about it. If I hired Greg Maddux, I'd make thousands of dollars. They both did the same thing--stand up with a baseball cap on. Are you saying that because they did the same amount of work, I should pay them equally for their time? Of course you wouldn't agree, it's ridiculous. While Joe was doing his own thing, Greg Maddux was working his *** off, building a career, building relationships, and perfecting his art, working 60+ hours a week (usually 6 days, most nights, including Sundays), becoming one of the top 10 or 20 in his field that have ever walked the planet.

It may be a "game" to some, but it's a lucrative billion-dollar business for those with stakes in it. And we may have done it as children, but obviously there's a reason that no one came and paid $50 to watch us play as children, right? ;-) If it were "just a game," then anyone who played the game would be just like these guys--wealthy. Obviously there's something more to it, yes? If you want to blame someone, blame the consumer, who in a free market ALWAYS sets the price. You get paid what you get paid as a dance teacher only because it's what people are willing to pay. Some people think private dance lessons are way too expensive, but you probably don't. It's all perspective.

All this is only made possible by the market supply and demand. People happen to like baseball more than they like basket weaving. So, should Greg Maddux be faulted for being just a "player in a game" that people happen to like by capitalizing financially on something he's good at, or should he be hailed as a genius by getting paid $20,000 a game, even when he's not playing, while those who complain about it have to work a year to make what he makes in a week? Who's really the smarter one here?

I don't mean to sound "in your face" to anyone, but this notion that income isn't somehow honorable unless you kill yourself working for it is just illogical to me. Who wouldn't like to get paid 10X what they make now, and take 6 months of the year to do as they please (whether that's to continue working, or vacationing, or volunteering, or whatever)? Does that make someone a lazy person? Use money to enhance your life, help others, and do good for humanity--work because you LOVE WHAT YOU DO, not so you can toil away and create a feeling of "worthiness" to receive money. Money is just money, and the amount you have or don't have does not make you good or bad, generous or stingy, nasty or nice! Work to get money, but don't feel that more work makes you more worthy to have that money--more work just makes you more tired--you're already worthy to have money!

(whew, sorry again for the long post!)

Josh

12-23-2007, 05:05 PM

I know some pretty phenomenal public school teachers and nurses who might disagree with you. ;)

Fair enough chachamama--my mother was a public school teacher for 10 years before moving to college, I totally understand that side of the story!

I guess what I mean though is that you get exactly what you're worth, according to those who pay you. To her school district, and probably all of them in the country, she's not valuable enough to make the "big bucks." The consumer always determines the price--in this case, it's the nation, state, or city government, which indirectly represent the taxpayer. So, if your desire is to be wealthy, then don't become a school teacher in a nation which does not place as high of a monetary value on education as it says it does!

waltzgirl

12-23-2007, 07:28 PM

Regardless of how good they are at their jobs, they get paid for "playing a game" or "playing a role"...both of which all of us did even as children.

Well, we all "danced" as children, too. I'm sure you've seen toddlers bopping away to music. Does that mean that, regardless of how good you are as a dance teacher, you're being overpaid? ;)

Angel HI

12-24-2007, 04:19 AM

Well, we all "danced" as children, too. I'm sure you've seen toddlers bopping away to music. Does that mean that, regardless of how good you are as a dance teacher, you're being overpaid? ;)

I believe this is a wee shallow. My orig. point is not that one shouldn't receive what one is worth or has worked very hard to achieve, rather it is that many professions are grossly overpaid. There isn't a ballplayer alive worth millions a year...an actor alive worth millions a year...an apartment or house built worth several million dollars. Do these things exist? Of course. Are they justifiable? A matter of opinion, and mine is "No". As I also said in the orig, post, as a failed attempt to help clarify the position, there is something wrong whem a ball player, actor, [or, even dance teacher] earns more than the president of the country.

White Chacha

12-24-2007, 09:04 AM

...I definitely concede your point about how ultra-talented ballplayers get their positions based on demonstrated achievements and don't just waltz (or free throw!) their way into them. I'm not 100% sure I'm convinced that is the logic that applies here. Remember, this is also a show that hired Samantha Harris.

Oh cringe. There's that expression nullifying the challenge of dancing!

Coincidentally, I just cited the "waltzing..." expression in another thread in the context of the way the skill required to dance is trivialized.

;-)

Josh

12-24-2007, 09:19 AM

There isn't a ballplayer alive worth millions a year... there is something wrong whem a ball player, actor, [or, even dance teacher] earns more than the president of the country.

I guess this is just a case where we differ in opinion angel :-) If you feel that there's "something wrong with the system," then a free market economy is not for you...! The market economy allows the consumers and producers to decide what to pay and ask, and this yields the pro sports salaries you see today. If nobody went to games, bought merchandise, and so on, then they'd get paid the same as your average Joe.

That SAME economy allows you to charge $60-90 (or more) for an hour (probably less) of dance instruction, which is more per hour than an upper middle class worker who makes $100,000 per year (at 40 hrs/week, it comes to about $50/hr) ! How would you like it if the government decided "pro sports players make way too much, and we're going to cap that at $100,000 a year, since it's 'just a game', oh and by the way, dancing is 'just for fun,' so dance teachers can only charge the consumer $15/hr..." without a free market where the consumer determines the price, the goverment often does. Think about the alternative...

Angel HI

12-25-2007, 04:52 AM

I guess this is just a case where we differ in opinion angel ...without a free market where the consumer determines the price, the goverment often does. Think about the alternative...

Understood. :mad:

Another Elizabeth

12-26-2007, 12:04 PM

Heres a fun idea-- if you had your choice-- who would be on your panel ?

I think Christine Harvey would be a fabulous choice. She knows ballroom, but she also has that acid British wit and she's quick on her feet with the commentary.

Chris Stratton

12-26-2007, 12:39 PM

$60-90 (or more) for an hour (probably less) of dance instruction, which is more per hour than an upper middle class worker who makes $100,000 per year (at 40 hrs/week, it comes to about $50/hr) !

You can't directly compare hourly rates for a sporadically employed independent contractor with those for a salaried employee with benefits.

Josh

12-26-2007, 10:22 PM

You can't directly compare hourly rates for a sporadically employed independent contractor with those for a salaried employee with benefits.

First, being "sporadically employed" is a function of many things, including the experience of the teacher, their value as perceived by others, their location, and other things--many independent dance teachers are not sporadically employed, and especially the ones that travel, easily gross $150,000 in a year. And w.r.t. the benefits--when you make double or triple what someone else makes, you can buy your own "benefits."

But either way, that's not the point.

Point (1) is regarding the "ridiculousness" of salaries:
Individuals set prices, and that value is perceived and determined by the market. The market has decided that $75 is a pretty standard rate for a private dance lesson, the market being comprised of those providing the service, and those paying for the service. Regardless of how someone not participating in that market may feel about the price ("$75 an hour?? That's way too high, it's only dancing!!"), the market has determined that that is a "fair" price. Likewise, regardless of how someone not involved in the sport and business of professional sports may feel about the price a person is paid ("$5M a year? That's ridiculous!"), the market has set that price as well, and determined it to be reasonable. While the prices and markets themselves may be worlds apart in terms of size and money involved, they both operate in essentially the same fashion.

Point (2) is regarding value of work:
The predominant concept among most in the regular working class is that of trading time for money. "If I work twice as much, I expect to get twice as much money in return (maybe a little more, depending on the pay scale)." Another concept that some consider but most do not act upon is that of trading value for money. If I manage a division that grosses 10X what it did last year, then why am I making the same salary (plus a 10% bonus, plus a 5% raise) as I did last year? The answer is simple: fear and security. With a fixed salary or fixed hourly rate, I am guaranteed to get paid regardless of my job performance. If I attach conditions to my performance, then I have lost a secure salary, and have traded it in for the greater risk, but with that greater risk comes greater potential for pay increase. This may include a change with your employer, but in most cases will mean starting your own business or investing--in that situation you directly control your destiny and pay rate. Most wealthy people work with this second model, and never trade time for money. Anyone who is truly wealthy in a monetary way MUST work off of the second model, as time is finite, but wealth is not.

Sunshines Partner

12-27-2007, 08:41 AM

Charlie Pinatello (sp?) is an EXTREMELY colorful character, but can also give a very piercing judgement of a dance (his wife even moreso, at least on technical side). Hell, Charlie's daughter is a trip too, would love to see the three of them judge a show together. Maybe not every week, but a guest judging with the three of them would be worth seeing.

I totally agree. Charlie Penatello is a real trip. He is one of the funniest people I’ve ever met. He is also a very genuine person. Jeannie, in all the years I’ve dancing is the most technical detailed coach I have ever seen. She is also one of the nicer people I have ever known. As for Christina, she is a combination of both her parents. I would love to see all 3 on the show, but I would like to see Christina as one of the Pros.

Chris Stratton

12-27-2007, 08:41 AM

when you make double or triple what someone else makes, you can buy your own "benefits."

Yes, and when you look at the cost of doing that, you realize that (at least when a family is involved) you do almost need to make twice as much. Or look at what it costs a company to employee someone - when all is said and done it's much closer to twice their salary than their salary. That's why you can't directly compare, as there are numerous additional costs that must be taken into account. When you take those into account, average teacher pay doesn't look that good at all. The flexibility to take off for two weeks of lessons in England... well, that's another matter. But it has its costs too.

Another Elizabeth

12-27-2007, 01:22 PM

Angel HI

12-28-2007, 12:34 AM

Josh, re your post http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.php?p=507131&postcount=31, I believe that you are completely correct. CS just doesn't seem to understand or want to understand your point. And, before someone says that I am contradicting my earlier posts, no, I am not. I specifically said that in my opinion there are certain salaries that are overpaid. But, I fully understand the economics behind them (Josh's points).

Josh

12-29-2007, 02:16 AM

Yes, and when you look at the cost of doing that, you realize that (at least when a family is involved) you do almost need to make twice as much. Or look at what it costs a company to employee someone - when all is said and done it's much closer to twice their salary than their salary. That's why you can't directly compare, as there are numerous additional costs that must be taken into account. When you take those into account, average teacher pay doesn't look that good at all. The flexibility to take off for two weeks of lessons in England... well, that's another matter. But it has its costs too.

Again, the comparison isn't about that; please reread the earlier post if you care to see what I mean.

Having been on both sides of the fence, I can say that the best thing about being an employee instead of working for yourself is the concept of paid holidays, but the cost of those are already cooked into your salary anyway, since there is no such thing as a free lunch, after all, so it winds up being only a psychological perk ("oh boy, I get paid to eat thanksgiving with my family", all the while not realizing that you've already "worked" those hours in decreased pay).

I haven't been to a doctor for a problem in 5 years, as I don't get sick, ever, so health benefits went unused. I only go to the dentist for cleanings, and do not go to eye doctor. 401(k) match is nice, I'll agree, but is a bit overrated IMO with tax considerations. All in all, I much prefer the freedom and flexibility of self-employment. It keeps me out of a rut, removes the cap on my income, and gives me direct control over how much I earn, and if I don't make LOADS of money, there's no one to blame but myself; I like having accountability over my own wealth and destiny. I'm sure many employers have many different kinds of benefits, but I've got everything I want and need as it is, because I am the master of my own domain. :-)

White Chacha

12-29-2007, 08:09 AM

...Having been on both sides of the fence, I can say that the best thing about being an employee instead of working for yourself is the concept of paid holidays, but the cost of those are already cooked into your salary anyway, since there is no such thing as a free lunch, after all, so it winds up being only a psychological perk ("oh boy, I get paid to eat thanksgiving with my family", all the while not realizing that you've already "worked" those hours in decreased pay).

...

Rather like tax refunds ;-)

Chris Stratton

12-29-2007, 08:19 AM

I haven't been to a doctor for a problem in 5 years, as I don't get sick, ever, so health benefits went unused.

Yet even someone who doesn't get sick can get in a nasty accident and rack up a few hundred thousand dollars of medical bills overnight and then be out of work for six months.

That's what benefits are for. Not the routine little stuff.

A lot of people in dynamic, healthy younger adult fields such as dancing may not spend a lot of time worrying about the lack of a way to handle such situations because it's very difficult to come up with any solution, but the risk is still there. And it's the kind of risk that the more security-oriented idea of salaried employment insists on coverage for. In other words, that money has to be spent for an employee, and so it has to go into the comparison calculation of effective pay rates, even if it's not a valuable expenditure in your opinion.

What you get as an independent contractor is freedom - freedom to set your hours, freedom to take risks, freedom to deal with economic reality on your own.

reb

12-29-2007, 08:42 AM

Ya gonna luv this one !!

The judges are complaing about fees-- they are currently paid £ 60, 000 for each of the 12 week series UK-- and the Amer. version -- would you believe £ 250,000!!--( Len & Toni )

Can anyone honestly justify those rates, for the time and effort expended ( add to this all their expenses are paid )
I believe most of us could nominate 4 equally REALLY qualified ( len being possibly an exception ) people to do the same job for half the price !
Just came back from Europe - according to the British Airways magazine Business Life, presenter Bruce Forsyth Strictly Come Dancing "has revived his career and re-crowned him King of Saturday night television. According to press reports, he receives £415,000 a series . . ."

It also said that BBC Worldwide has been "sold to 30 countries" with Bruno and Len shuttling back and forth across the Atlantic to be part of the UK and US judging contingent.

- and that DWTS cookie-cutter success "was credited as being a major part" of BBC Worldwide's profits outpacing revenue increase.

In the article, it also mentioned that China's 1st year brought in 20M viewers, and of interest, USA's Jonathan Roberts was pictured with Heather Mills.

reb

12-29-2007, 09:02 AM

Regarding the independent contractor sidebar, it sounds like most have experienced it first-hand and know what's up . . . from a slightly different angle of the same coin, I have hired many hundreds of independents and after explaining the risks/rewards to the thousands of prospective candidates, 9 out of 10 do not want it.

They are typically attracted by the *high* hourly rate, and can't help but multiply that by 2000 to assume a salary equivalent (just as they can't help but divide their current W2 weekly salary by 40) for an *equivalent* hourly rate. All things considered, one of the hardest things to do is hire (recruit/extract) a W2 employee with a family and deploy them as an independent contractor - because the risk is too big and the reward is not as fanciful. Its extraordinarily easier to hire an independent who is already living those risks - and is truly happy with the freedom and reward, such as it is.

As has been said here very well - its all about freedom - and with freedom comes risks. My grandparents who were teachers are among the most well-off middle-class retirees - they had job stability, a liveable wage every week, and the pension money keeps rolling in. Now if I could only do so well . . . .

etp777

12-29-2007, 09:06 AM

Yeah, working as an indpendent contractor can have it's benefits, but you definitely have to consider all sides of the coin. Parents and I all do it, in various ways. Depending on the job, sure varies how good it is (current main job is in middle, primarily untaxed, no retirement benefits, etc, but there are med/dental benefits. Assuming you can find anyone in this country to honor them). And then other side effects, like fact that my life insurance won't pay out if something happened to me here.

tangotime

12-29-2007, 09:06 AM

reb

12-29-2007, 09:10 AM

That is not unusal for a performer of his stature ( 60yrs in the Biz. )

Thanks - I'm glad to have heard from someone familiar with him / his career.

Tangotime - are you going to take the job if they offer it to you?!?!:D

tangotime

12-29-2007, 09:25 AM

Thanks - I'm glad to have heard from someone familiar with him / his career.

Tangotime - are you going to take the job if they offer it to you?!?!:D

Have to stand in line behind 10,000 others ! ( but I have a plan ;) )

-- isnt that what Guy Fawlkes said ??

elisedance

12-29-2007, 10:31 AM

Have to stand in line behind 10,000 others ! ( but I have a plan ;) )

-- isnt that what Guy Fawlkes said ??

:google:Well, one person that said it was John Kerry in his campaign against Bush....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E2DF133EF934A15756C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Josh

12-29-2007, 06:09 PM

Rather like tax refunds ;-)

Do you know why you get tax refunds? It's because you paid the government too much to begin with (they're taking too much out of your paycheck for federal tax). They don't just give money away. In other words, you have loaned the government money without charging them interest, and they're now paying you back what was already yours to begin with. I pay the government what I owe them, at the end of the year, and thus I get that same money you do, only I keep it from the start :-)

Josh

12-29-2007, 06:48 PM

Yet even someone who doesn't get sick can get in a nasty accident and rack up a few hundred thousand dollars of medical bills overnight and then be out of work for six months.

Very true Chris, and I have spent a lot of thought on it. The insurance business is very much like the gambling business in that they are both always going to make money, because they are both based on probabilities (though casinos are a little more stable, as they are not affected by as much in the world as an insurance company is).

Everything in insurance is probability-based. Do you pay for supplemental health care, even if you have regular coverage through your employer? Most do not, and the reason is that probabilistically the odds are lower that they will need the kind of care that this extra cost would provide. Probabilistically, it's a bad decision to buy an extended warranty from an electronics store on a major brand purchase, so I don't do it. Could my new Sony camcorder break? Yes, but it probably won't. If I buy a few lottery tickets, could I win the lottery? Yes, but I probably won't, so I don't. You could have the most expensive car and homeowners insurance available, but chances are you don't, because probably you won't need as much as it would cost. It's all about risk and probability.

etp777

12-29-2007, 06:52 PM

Indeed, have to weigh the odds and take a gamble, like most of life. Just like I didn't take extra life insurance when I was workign in chicago, but here I took largest policy they'd sell me without an extra physical, and might have even done that if I had had time for the physical. Not particularly unsafe here, but is definitely less safe than living in Chicago, hence, more likely that that will ahve to pay out.

waltzgirl

12-29-2007, 09:00 PM

Very true Chris, and I have spent a lot of thought on it. The insurance business is very much like the gambling business in that they are both always going to make money, because they are both based on probabilities (though casinos are a little more stable, as they are not affected by as much in the world as an insurance company is).

Everything in insurance is probability-based. Do you pay for supplemental health care, even if you have regular coverage through your employer? Most do not, and the reason is that probabilistically the odds are lower that they will need the kind of care that this extra cost would provide. Probabilistically, it's a bad decision to buy an extended warranty from an electronics store on a major brand purchase, so I don't do it. Could my new Sony camcorder break? Yes, but it probably won't. If I buy a few lottery tickets, could I win the lottery? Yes, but I probably won't, so I don't. You could have the most expensive car and homeowners insurance available, but chances are you don't, because probably you won't need as much as it would cost. It's all about risk and probability.

Thinking only about the probabilities is a limited analysis of whether you should purchase various kinds of insurance. There is also the question of what is at stake if you happen to lose your probability bet (after all, catastrophies happen to 100% of the people they happen to) and what other resources you have available if the worst happens. If your camcorder dies and you can't afford another one, it may be annoying, but probably not more than that. If you get in a car accident and break your leg and you can't make your living as a dance teacher for months, insurance looks like a good bet, since the consequences might include homelessness, inferior care at a public health facility, etc. But of course that also depends on what other resources you have; if you have 6 months living expenses in the bank or can move home and be taken care of by your parents, then all you are risking is your savings (or perhaps your sanity if you move home;)) and that might be a gamble worth taking.

Chris Stratton

12-29-2007, 10:39 PM

The thing about health insurance is that in a lot of cases, it's not really a matter of personal choice. A lot of people working independently simply can't do it. On the other hand, those employed in companies that offer it don't really have a choice to decline it, either. Oh, sure, you can decline, but you'll only get your own contribution added back into your pay check. The (usually still) larger share of the cost that the employer is paying would simply be forfeit if you opt out. Basically, by tradition that's part of your pay (your cost of employment), but not part that you get to spend. But since it's a real expense to your employer, it has to be counted when you compare hourly rates for employees vs. independent contractors.

Josh

12-30-2007, 02:40 AM

Thinking only about the probabilities is a limited analysis of whether you should purchase various kinds of insurance. There is also the question of what is at stake if you happen to lose your probability bet (after all, catastrophies happen to 100% of the people they happen to)

In the WORST case, insurance always makes sense. But in the BEST case, it never does. Probabilistically, the best case is more likely, or insurance companies wouldn't be making money. We're essentially talking about how much our health is worth here. If the odds that you were going to require $1M because of some health condition were 1,000,000:1, how much would you pay per month in order to receive guaranteed coverage for it? What if the odds were 1,000:1? 100:1? These are personal questions, and only you can decide that for yourself. For a 1,000,000:1 probability, most would call you crazy for paying $300 a month for such coverage. Others might feel that it's worth it. It's all perspective.

Insurance premiums are determined based on past data in such a way that it will ALWAYS be more profitable financially for the insurance company. Put another way, the total amount of all premiums coming in from all customers will ALWAYS be more than the total amount of money they must pay to the health care providers. Thus, it follows that the average amount that an average person will pay in premiums will always be greater than the average amount that his health care will cost (this is the cost that the insurance company pays, which is always less than the amount that an individual will pay, as they don't have to pay as much). So, on average, assuming you're somewhere along the middle of the bell curve (health-wise, safe-wise etc.), then you will spend more money for the insurance than the care itself will cost.

(note that this is a greatly simplified view of things, and there are many complex factors involved--I'm talking about regular cases here)

(oh, and while I do love my family very much, I moved out on my own when I was 18 and so for the last decade or so have enjoyed having a nice long-distance relationship with my family :-) hehe)

waltzgirl

12-30-2007, 03:18 AM

note that this is a greatly simplified view of things, and there are many complex factors involved

You said it.

I don't believe that insurance companies make profits only, or even primarily, by playing the probabilities in a purely mathematical way. They aren't gambling at all, because they set both what they will cover and their rates. They use real demographic data about disease rates to determine how much the health care for a large population will cost, based on past actual experience and economic projections about increases in health care costs. Then they set their rates so that *the large population* will, in total, pay more than they, in total, will cost. It has nothing to do with the odds that any one individual will become ill.

And then they bolster their profits by investing the premiums that come in advance of the need for medical care and by very agressive efforts to control health care costs and to limit and deny care when possible. If playing the probabilities were such a sure thing, they wouldn't need to do that.

Insurance began as mutual aid societies, where people pooled some money that they could draw upon in dire circumstances, each putting their own money in for the assurance that they could draw on the community fund if they needed to. So, the lucky did end up subsidizing the unlucky, but were willing to do so in the realistic knowledge that luck and health don't always last.

Then, as always happens to a good idea, somebody realized they could make money off it.

tangotime

12-30-2007, 05:09 AM

This is beginning to sound like a meeting for Actuaries :rolleyes:

Angel HI

12-30-2007, 06:02 AM

I don't believe that insurance companies make profits only, or even primarily, by playing the probabilities in a purely mathematical way.

Though I like your post, the above and below quotes seem the same to me.

...because they set both what they will cover and their rates. They use real demographic data about disease rates to determine how much the health care for a large population will cost, based on past actual experience and economic projections about increases in health care costs. Then they set their rates so that *the large population* will, in total, pay more than they, in total, will cost.

Josh

12-30-2007, 11:34 AM

So I just looked up information on how insurance companies make money. It looks like sometimes they collect more premiums than their payments (an underwriting profit), in which case they do have a profit, and sometimes they don't. You're exactly right WG, that they invest because the premiums are collected long before they have to pay in most cases, and in this way they always make money.

Either way, risk is risk, reward is reward, and we all have to make a decision about how much insurance is enough for us personally.

At any rate, sorry I continued this off-topic discussion for so long, but it was interesting nonetheless!

Larinda McRaven

12-30-2007, 12:50 PM

Well some people have choices. Here in Massachusetts we are forced to carry health insurance. If we don't we are unable to submit our taxes at the end of the year.

Angel HI

12-30-2007, 01:00 PM

Not contesting that it is done...but, makes one wonder how is this allowed to be...how is this legal? (rhetorical question, of course)

Josh

12-30-2007, 02:05 PM

Wow Larinda, had no idea--of course I have car insurance because it's required, but did not know that anywhere health insurance was required... what if you're old, overweight, smoke, and regularly attempt rock climbing? What if no insurance company will insure you?

White Chacha

12-30-2007, 04:50 PM

The mandatory health insurance law in MA/US is new as of this past year.

waltzgirl

12-30-2007, 05:53 PM

Something similar is being considered in California. There would be a state-run insurance program for people who don't have and can't get private insurance, I suppose similar to the state auto insurance program for people who can't get private auto insurance.

etp777

12-30-2007, 05:55 PM

MA has a state subsidized program. And there are companies that offer risk--pool (think tha'ts name) insurance for those who are uninsurable, eithe rdue to preexisting conditions, or poor health choices (smokers, overeaters, etc).

I don't really know details of risk-pool, but I'm sure it's not cheap.

tangotime

12-31-2007, 03:54 AM

The 1st step on the path of socialised health care ?-- wonder if T .K. had anything to do with that ? :rolleyes:

Dave Bailey

12-31-2007, 06:38 AM

Just came back from Europe - according to the British Airways magazine Business Life, presenter Bruce Forsyth Strictly Come Dancing "has revived his career and re-crowned him King of Saturday night television. According to press reports, he receives £415,000 a series . . ."
Good for him. Bruce has been (IMO) one of the key factors in making SCD a success. If the franchise were a company, you'd expect to pay the CEO much more than that based on its success - so I'm happy he's being rewarded. He's a professional entertainer and he's been doing this stuff for a long time.

As for the original point, I wonder if this is the standard "5 year negotiation" thing going on? In that most TV series have fixed-salary deals for the first 5 years - so for year 6 of a successful series, the negotiations can get... heated. I vaguely recall this happened with Friends in year 5, didn't it?

And, whilst I support the rights of performers to get salaries matching their success, I'm not sure that the judges are indispensable - the show's been a success in other countries without them, after all, and they're not professional entertainers. Len was particularly grumpy on this series of SCD, and Bruno's just a waste of space - the only one I respect is Craig, because he tells it straight and gives honest marks.

In addition, the SCD judges salaries are (indirectly) paid by me as a BBC-license-fee paying member of the public - and at a time when the Beeb is making 1,800 staff redundant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7050440.stm), whingeing about being paid so "little" is, to say the least, a bit tactless. SCD has made these guys famous, and (relatively) rich, so putting up with a mere £60K for 10 weeks' part-time work doesn't seem to be too much of a hardship. :rolleyes:

tangotime

12-31-2007, 07:12 AM

And, whilst I support the rights of performers to get salaries matching their success, I'm not sure that the judges are indispensable - the show's been a success in other countries without them, after all, and they're not professional entertainers. Len was particularly grumpy on this series of SCD, and Bruno's just a waste of space :)- the only one I respect is Craig, because he tells it straight and gives honest marks.

In addition, the SCD judges salaries are (indirectly) paid by me as a BBC-license-fee paying member of the public - and at a time when the Beeb is making 1,800 staff redundant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7050440.stm), whingeing about being paid so "little" is, to say the least, a bit tactless. SCD has made these guys famous, and (relatively) rich, so putting up with a mere £60K for 10 weeks' part-time work doesn't seem to be too much of a hardship. :rolleyes:

Speaks to my original point --and by the way-- i do not begrudge them all they can get -- thats not the issue for me -- I guess thats why people employ agents !

Chris Stratton

12-31-2007, 08:18 AM

Well some people have choices. Here in Massachusetts we are forced to carry health insurance. If we don't we are unable to submit our taxes at the end of the year.

Not true.

A Massachusetts resident deemed to not be be in compliance with the law looses their personal exemption, meaning they will have to pay 5.3% tax on the first $4125 of their income that would otherwise be tax free. That works out to $218.63, which is noticeably less than a single month's insurance premium (or at least a single month's premium before any new programs became available). The penalties for those employers who are supposed to offer insurance but don't are similarly small.

It's an interesting idea, but much more of a symbolic nudge than an actual mandate.

reb

12-31-2007, 11:00 AM

And, whilst I support the rights of performers to get salaries matching their success, I'm not sure that the judges are indispensable - the show's been a success in other countries without them, after all, and they're not professional entertainers.
Well said. They should be paid according to their success. They have become personalities/franchises of their own, and/or their personalities/celebrity has grown through DWTS. Good for them.

For the continued success of the larger franchise . . . there are people who are entertaining, not annoying, knowledgeable about dance (take your pick or combination of attributes), so it might be in the interest of the success of the larger franchise to bring in some talent.

Trade up? Tie pay to ratings? Tie next years' employment to ratings?

Aim for the audience wanting to enjoying the judges instead of Tivo'ing through.

Terpsichorean Clod

12-31-2007, 05:20 PM

This is beginning to sound like a meeting for Actuaries :rolleyes:
You called? :bouncy:

Dave Bailey

01-02-2008, 03:40 AM

For the continued success of the larger franchise . . . there are people who are entertaining, not annoying, knowledgeable about dance (take your pick or combination of attributes), so it might be in the interest of the success of the larger franchise to bring in some talent.
In SCD, which has 4 judges, I'd like to see something like 3 permanent judges and a rotating guest judge - for example, one of the (pro) competitors who's knocked out early. And for things like the AT and salsa, they could have guest judges who specialise in that area, and who actually know something about the dance...

Trade up? Tie pay to ratings? Tie next years' employment to ratings?
I'd imagine that it's very difficult to determine the impact of individual judges on ratings - short of expensive market research... At some point, I think TV production decisions turn on judgement - or putting it another way, they make it up as they go :)

Aim for the audience wanting to enjoying the judges instead of Tivo'ing through.
The very very annoying thing about judge comments is when they deliver these pre-rehearsed soundbite comments, rather than actually providing some information.

We had a competitor called Matt on the last series of SCD, and one of the judges kept coming up with cringe-y comments like "Matt-ador" and "Matt-inee idol" :rolleyes:

tangotime

01-02-2008, 04:10 AM

-

for example, one of the (pro) competitors who's knocked out early. And for things like the AT and salsa, they could have guest judges who specialise in that area, and who actually know something about the dance...

:rolleyes:

Not legal-- competing prof,s are not allowed to judge their peers .

One guest judge knowledgeable in a specific area, would probably ( like Len sometimes ) get out voted .

I like your idea in principle-- but casting folks have strange ideas ( to us ) as to whom should be brought in as an " expert ? " .

Public name recognition plays a huge role .

Dave

01-02-2008, 04:14 AM

I like your idea in principle-- but casting folks have strange ideas ( to us ) as to whom should be brought in as an " expert ? ".God yes. We've already seen that with the Salsa...

White Chacha

01-02-2008, 08:03 AM

I noticed in video that SCD employs 4 judges. The US version of the show uses 3 judges. Does anyone have insight into that difference? I thought you never wanted an even number of judges in any case.

Dave Bailey

01-02-2008, 08:44 AM

Not legal-- competing prof,s are not allowed to judge their peers .
:confused:I doubt that proper competition rules apply to a reality show - and it's already happened, Brendan Cole is a judge in the New Zealand show.

One guest judge knowledgeable in a specific area, would probably ( like Len sometimes ) get out voted .
Sure - but at least you'd have someonewith some credibility, which is better than nothing. The judges' comments on salsa and AT were truly cringe-worthy, they clearly knew very little about it.

I like your idea in principle-- but casting folks have strange ideas ( to us ) as to whom should be brought in as an " expert ? " .
Yeah - Vincent and Flavia are touted as World Champions in AT, when, let's be honest, they're not up their with the real champs.

and:
God yes. We've already seen that with the Salsa...
Chris "Short Shouty Salsa Guy", indeed :)