Why should American taxpayers fund foreign labor? (format corrected)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Animation Nation Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bob on December 27, 1999 at 10:25:58:

: :
Dear Friends:

This post continues the debate from Dave's October 20, 1999 post, regarding whether U.S. taxpayers should fund foreign labor.

My latest comments are in bold.

: : Posted by Dave on October 20, 1999 at 15:17:23:

: : In Reply to: But there is a difference posted by Bob on October 19, 1999 at 21:30:12:

: : : : Thanks for posting this Sam.

: : : : : concerning the PBS thing, as you've been discussing with 'mako' whom i know very well
: : : : : is that, yes! u.s. studios can send things overseas. PBS does tell their patrons
: : : : : that 'their money' is working for them. that becomes more of a PBS accountability issue than
: : : : : one directed toward canadians.

: : : : And should be. Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work and I doubt the British contribute a dime.

: : Actually, the British did/do contribute

: : Not to the American PBS . Not a dime. Dont even try it.

: :
: : Point One: Your position must be awfully weak for you to resort to taking my statements out of context and deleting the relevant text.
: :

: The entire point was "do they contribute to Americas PBS". Answer. No. It's hard to be weak when all you have is fact.

Then it wasn't necessary for you to delete my response, which you did again - which does weaken your case, as well as your integrity. It is also fact that the BBC doesn't have to contribute to the PBS. They produce their own programming with their own money.

: This is what I said, in full: "Actually, the British did/do contribute -- not to PBS, but to the BBC.
: :

: Who cares at all if they pay into the BBC.

You did. You said, "Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work and I doubt the British contribute a dime."

The British contribute to their own productions, not PBS. The British pay into the BBC because the government charges a license fee.

:This is about American Tax payer money of which I am one.

So what are you going to do about it?

: : Point Two: In other words, the British don't need to contribute to PBS; they've already paid for their own programming. The British pay the production costs for BBC programming, not Americans. Conversely, PBS pays for its production costs, not the British.

: It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever who produces it. None.

Yes it does. Because we are not hiring foreign labor to produce a BBC show. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a BBC show. If we paid for it it would be a PBS show, not a BBC show.

: Do we pay for it. YES!

To produce the show? No! It's already made.

: Our PBS money to British producers.

Broadcasting rights, not production costs, remember? The British reciprocate by purchasing broadcasting rights to air American shows. Just because they buy the rights to air Dallas doesn't mean they contribute to the show's production, any more than Americans pay production costs for Fawlty Towers.

: : Point Three: "Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work…" Which is it, Dave? "Most of" or "in part"?

: :

: "Most of PBS" meaning the majority of PBS stations around the country dominated "in part by British series ". Hope that clears it up.

Dominated "in part"? The BBC does not dominate PBS programming.
: :For the week of October 24, KERA 13-Dallas/Ft. Worth airs 23 hours of British programming. Its sister station KDTN 2 airs 5-1/2 hours' worth. Hardly "most of" or domination by the BBC.

: :

: Trusting you that you are correct since I have no viewers guide for that PBS station.

All you have to do is access their website.

: 23 hours in one month for just that station …

You're not paying attention. I said 23 hours "for the week of October 24." You don't know the difference between broadcast rights and production costs, you don't think "foreign" applies to overseas studios and now you don't know the difference between a week and a month??????

: is a fair bit of money that could have been spent on American film makers. Do you not think ?

Of course. As if paying for a rerun will generate the hiring of labor. Yeah, right. If PBS stations could afford to fill their schedule with original programming instead of airing reruns, why are they showing reruns?
: : Shows like DOCTOR WHO and MASTERPIECE THEATER were paid for before they were shown in America.
: :

: : : Like that makes any difference.
: :
: : Yes it does. I explained it to you but you chose to delete my explanation. Here it is again: PBS does not pay for British production costs. They pay for broadcasting rights. There is a difference.
: :

: Broadcasting rights or producing it the money is still American and could have been paid to American film makers. Period. End .

You repeat this point later; I address this point later.

: :
: : Point One: Paying for the rights to air the programming, not the program's production costs. A BBC show is budgeted on receipts from British TV licensing fee, not from U.S. dollars.

: :

: So what ! Do we pay , yes or no ?!?! The answer is yes !

So what? Do we hire British labor to make shows for us? The answer is no!

When PBS pays broadcasting rights for a rerun, are they paying foreign labor to make new shows for us? The answer is no!

Whether it is production cost or broadcast rights it is not American nor does it help produce any American films. Are you trying to say that there is NO AMERICAN PROGRAMMING TO FILL THESE SLOTS ?

No. Are you trying to say PBS stations can afford to produce shows to fill these slots? They can't. That's why they buy reruns, because reruns are cheaper. Therefore, labor is not hired because the show is already made, be it from Britain or from America.

Are you trying to tell us that we cannot pay for the broadcasting rights to American films on PBS ?

No. Of course we can pay for the broadcasting rights to American films on PBS - but it does not generate new jobs. That is the difference between paying money for broadcasting rights and paying production costs.

: Explain to me how this is " more acceptable"

Gladly. The PBS/Nelvana deal involves the hiring of foreign labor to make a show, which means American jobs are lost. The PBS/BBC arrangements do not involve the hiring of foreign labor to make a show, since BBC shows are already made. Therefore, no American jobs are lost. The British in turn purchase rebroadcast rights for our shows. That is why rebroadcast sales are "more acceptable."

:and don't go on about how they pay the BBC through taxes because they are not American and none of the money goes to the US. Period.

How can labor be hired to make a show that already exists? Answer: It doesn't happen. Period.
: :The British make TV shows primarily for themselves. We're just an ancillary market.

: So what ?!?!? Do we pay money to BBC or not ?!

: Canada, England , France. What makes you think these are any different.

I keep telling you but you're not comprehending. Please understand. They are not paying production costs. They are buying broadcast rights. Their taxpayer dollars do not hire U.S. labor to make shows because Americans have already paid the production costs.

: The point is that if you stop buying from them they stop buying from you. Just like Canada.

And that's why U.S. taxpayers should fund foreign labor for its own programming? Nonsense.

: :
: : In fact even twice as insulting because the lousy contract awarded to Nelvana isn't even under their control. It is an American run service job. Tell me which you would chose. To create your own programming or do other peoples service jobs. You are right. There is a difference.
: :
: : Irrelevant. The agreement PBS made with Nelvana still amounts to U.S. taxpayers funding non-U.S. labor, be it Canadians or Pacific Rimmers

: :

: Totally relevant since the only interest here is getting it back to have a US company ship it to the rim. In all cases the only money made is by the company and not the labor. You have no leg to stand on.

Again you demonstrate a lack of comprehension. Do you see the previous sentence I made? I will repeat it for you. Read these words slowly if you have to. Say them out loud and repeat them: The agreement PBS made with Nelvana still amounts to U.S. taxpayers funding non-U.S. labor, be it Canadians or Pacific Rimmers.

Nowhere have I stated an interest in having any animation shipped to the rim. Do you therefore want people to think you lack reading skills, or that you're delusional, or just plain stupid?

: : In the case of the Nelvana deal, PBS is paying production costs, which are a whole lot more than paying for reruns.
: :

: The fact you dont know the cost but makes this statement proves my point.

The fact that you make this untrue statement proves your ignorance, and your deceit. I have signed nondisclosure statements for the companies I work for and I am not at liberty to disclose specific financial arrangements.

: You have no idea what the comparative costs are and yet you insist there is a difference. Basing it on nothing but assumption.

Basing it upon fact. You cannot disprove a fact. I already told you where you can find your proof: the Internet. You can also ask Charles Zembillas, or Tom Sito, or Steve Hulett, the business rep of the Screen Cartoonists Union, or studio producers. They may or may not disclose specific details, but the fact still remains, that paying for reruns is not the same as paying production costs.

Steve Hulett, Business Representative from the Screen Cartoonists Local 839, from the November 1999 issue of The Pegboard: ". . . It was agreed that we would be well advised to protest the use of public funds to produce animation outside the U.S. This is not at all the same as PBS buying the U.S. broadcast rights to British-produced TV series such as those shown on Masterpiece Theater."

: :
: : :Quote the costs vs since you seem to think you know them.
: :
: : The following three sentences you make indicate that it doesn't matter to you.
: :

: Answer. You do not know. Thanks.

Answer. You're wrong. You're welcome.

: Now if you want specifics and you're truly interested, you do the research. The Internet is at your disposal.

: :

: You were the one stating there was a difference and you have yet to prove it by actual fact.

What I stated was a fact. Therefore, it is already proven. You can't disprove a fact.

: :
: : So it is ok to you that you pay for a British series rather than fund American film makers or buy an American series. Nice double standard.
: :
: : Rubbish. Paying for the rights to air a pre-existing British series - or a pre-existing American-made show for that matter - is not the same as funding original programming, which is a higher expense.

: :
: You have yet to prove that.

You have yet to disprove that. But you can't because it is a fact.

I also gave you proof in the research you can do on the Internet. Again, ask Charles Zembillas, your union business rep, and studio producers, and they will verify what I say is true.

:Any funding whether it was for short films or a series is still money going to outsiders. Period.

What "period"? I'm talking about the hiring of foreign labor to produce a show. Paying for the rights to see a pre-existing show does not hire labor, either foreign or domestic.

: Now tell us how much the 23 hours (just one months worth in your area) of British programs costs for broadcast rights vs funding a film to be sent to the rim through Canada that has no rebroadcast costs.

Why? Labor is not hired through rebroadcast costs. Whereas labor is hired through production costs. Therefore, your analogy doesn't work.

: Now from what I understand EVERY PBS STATION has an individual budget and so pays based on programs they chose to air. So we will multiply your areas PBS cost to air that British series by every single PBS station in the US to get final US broadcast costs. Savvy ?

And do these broadcast costs pay for labor to make a show that already exists? No. Savvy?
: : Paying for the rights to air a BBC show isn't going to put Americans out of work any more than a PBS rerun of The Lawrence Welk Show.

: :

: That is pretty twisted thinking.

No. It's twisted thinking for you to expect labor to be hired to produce a show that already exists.

: Paying money out to BBC means you aren't paying any US company to create programming.

Wrong. The choice is either a rerun from the BBC, or a rerun of an American show. In neither case is labor hired to produce a show because it already exists.

We are not paying the BBC to create programming for us. They create their own programming. If PBS stations can afford to produce their own shows instead of the reruns they show, why are they showing reruns?

: Sorry, you are off here.

No, I am spot on. My point from the very beginning was objecting to the hiring of foreign labor to make U.S. programming with the use of taxpayer money. We do not lose jobs with the purchase of BBC programming, because those shows are already made.

: :
: : Taxpayers money is money reguardless of the source of the programming.
: :
: : Yes it is. And we get our money back since the BBC buys American programming.

: :


Not at all. Because the British and Canadians purchase pre-existing programming. They are not funding production costs. They are not generating jobs. They are not paying foreign labor to make shows. They pay for pre-existing programming. Unlike the PBS-Nelvana deal.

: : The question remains: Why should Americans subsidize foreign labor at the expense of their own jobs?
: :
: : Good point. We should also examine the Canadian PBS TV Ontario.
: :
: : Why? They are not American taxpayers.
: :

: You just got through "Britian buys our programming" and you just cannot deal with the fact that Canada does as well. It is obvious you are willing to ignore even your own logic . You are trapped.

You are confused. Neither Britain nor Canada pay production costs for our programming.

: : Are you suggesting they should dictate how another country spends its money?
: :

: Silly. You are so trapped here.

You are so confused here. British and Canadian taxpayers do not dictate how American taxpayers spend their money.

: :
: : From what I remember Seasame Street was funded in part by
: : them as well. Series like Nova. 90% of Canadian PBS was American programming
: :
: : … already paid for by American money. Canadian taxpayers do not pay for production costs of PBS programming. What TV Ontario buys is broadcasting rights for a pre-existing production.
: :

: Makes no difference. Still payed to Americans.

Makes every difference. Canadians are not paying production costs. They are not hiring American labor to make pre-existent programming.

: :
: : it seems interesting that when a crap contract gets awarded to a Canadian company the flags go up.
: :
: : The only "crap" about the contract is that it's a misuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
: :

: Go to Korea and get it back.

Even better, don't use U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund foreign labor in the first place.

: :
: : Economic giant vs puny beaten up Canada, who because of the free trade totally lost
: : it's industrial sector to the upper states (who offered NON UNION LABOR , tax incentives and free land) and whos currency is worth half an American dollar.
: :
: : And what does that have to do with U.S. taxpayer dollars funding non-U.S. labor? Absolutely nothing.
: :

: No it has to do with attacking any Canadian company that gets work from the US. It has top do with Free Trade and economic shifts to economically devastated countries with devalued currency.

As I said: What does that have to do with U.S. taxpayer dollars funding non-U.S. labor? Absolutely nothing. I told you I was addressing ONLY the use of American taxpayer dollars in funding production, and the difference between production costs and broadcast fees. It is unnecessary for you to infer anything beyond what I've said at face value.

: I've already proved there is no difference between sending production money to to Canada or paying the British to air their programs.

In other words, you don't know the difference between making a show and a rerun. That's pathetic. All you've proved is your ignorance.

: It is ALL taxpayers money and none of it goes to Americans (or Canadian labor in this case).

Wrong. The British have already paid for their programs. PBS uses mostly viewer donations to purchase broadcasting rights to air BBC programs. If you don't believe me, contact Diana Santos at KCET at 323-953-5238.

: :
: : Since Canada does nothing BUT pay for American programming, products, services, tech , cars , I'm pretty surprised at you feeling this way Bob. Really surprised.
: :
: : Of course you're surprised. You're misrepresenting my statements again. You obviously don't know how I feel.
: :

: I definately do. Clearly.

And you are clearly wrong. You are reading a meaning in my statements that exists only in your imagination. I was addressing ONLY the use of American taxpayer dollars in funding production, and the difference between production costs and broadcast fees. It is unnecessary for you to infer anything beyond what I've said at face value.
: :

: It is clearly beyond that. You popped in all those Canadian government https just by accident eh ? No you just had them ready right ? You are pretty obvious.

Yes, obvious in addressing your double-standard, nothing more.

: Examining the situation there is NO Canadian labour involved only Rim and whether you like it or not the idea that giving a job to a Canadian company to send overseas somehow takes something away from American workers is just silly.

Yes, it's silly because that is your fantasy. It is not my position.

: : Hypothetically, if the National Film Board of Canada gave U.S. $40 million to an American studio to make shorts, I would imagine Canadian taxpayers would be up in arms, and I wouldn't blame them.

Well, you deleted my statement again, which I've returned in red. Why are you so afraid of reality? Where is your integrity?
: :

: Crap. Numbers. Proof. No more bullshit.

Then stop giving it. I have been supplying facts all along.

Fact: There is a difference between paying production costs and paying for broadcast rights for a rerun.
Fact: Paying for a rerun is cheaper than funding production costs.
Fact: Labor is not hired to make a show that already exists.

: :
: : Please, picket PBS and get the damn funds back.
: :

: : Your suggestion seems to imply there's little we can do about the situation, in which case you have no reason to be upset.
: :

: Nor do you. Funny huh ?

Yes, funny that my remarks are substantiated and yours are not, which means you continue to demonstrate a lack of perception.

: :Politically-astute people know there are more effective means of persuasion.

: :
: Well tell me when you meet them.

Gladly. Click on this link.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Animation Nation Message Board ] [ FAQ ]