Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetRick
Not true. Actually quite the opposite. Because you'll have your own business, you'll be writing off expenses (equipment, mileage, etc.). In reality, it'll be like you're earning MORE than $48k per year (should be $52k as there are 52 weeks per year). Unless you don't write off anything--which would be stupid--you'll have much more of that money in your pocket.
|
Honestly, I think we've gotten to the point where we're splitting hairs on this. The whole sentiment behind the statement was that taking "$200 jobs" devalues the industry. I'm not sure how we wound up on this tangent of "well, assuming a day per job and a job every day, that $200 per job = $48k per year."
For starters, the phrase "$200 job" was more general than specific, and he could have just as easily said $100 job or $300 job. Secondly, all the assumptions that were made in figuring out the annual salary are pretty presumptuous. Photographers never have a new job every business day of the year, and jobs are rarely neatly wrapped in one day.
The whole "$200 job = $48,000 salary" assumption is spurious and largely off-tangent from the sentiment of Storm's statement. I'm as much at fault for continuing that argument as anyone, but I think our energies would be better spent discussing the point at hand rather than deconstructing a flawed and artificial figure that wasn't even in the original article.