How hard is living while being a performer?- Page 2

[kelzama]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:57am

"Also keep in mind that with Bush in office taxes are rediculous. So there's a huge chunk that comes out for taxes."

Jazzysuite, that's a ridiculous statement. Yes taxes are high, but Bush ain't the one who raised the federal rates; that'd be your senators & congressmen. You might blame the NY legislature as well; you've got some pretty high state taxes, too.

Technically, $70k, no matter where you live, puts you into middle-high income rankings, with many legislators considering you to be high-income and deserving of more taxes to subsidize programs for the "less fortunate." Reality check, folks, average national salary is maybe $35,000, even for families. Even if you adjust $70K for NYC's cost-of-living, you still come out way above the national average.

You've the power of the union behind your healthcare costs. Another reality check: most small businesses, who don't have group purchasing power behind the health care costs (thanks, FDR) are paying well over $800 per month for coverage. We haven't even touched on retirement planning benefits, another perk that small businesses are hard-pressed to provide.

Love or hate unions, Equity's done well for it's members. And even the Broadway chorus should be able to live quite nicely on their salaries.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:04am

I live in New York City, Midtown to be exact, on less than $1400 per week.

[Buscee]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:14am

I believe that there salary is very good. It's more than I make a week. The statement about Bush being in office, and taxes high. Well everyone pays the same taxes. How about making half that salary then being taxed? I will only say this, Actors unfortunately the lowest paid on BRoadway. The mUsicians, and stage hands make a bit more.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:14am

Of course you can live on 1400/wk.

But, when you only make that for six months, and then don't have a job for another two years...that 1400/wk becomes less than 300/wk. Now, THAT is closer to the reality of the situation.

And, as you I'm sure know, actors have to spend a LOT of money on lessons and other things (like parties, clothing, classes, meals, meetings, headshots, massages, etc) that keep them in front of the right people on a constant basis and keep them healthy. It is an impossible task for anyone to have to deal with.

That's why my advice is always "don't be afraid of debt, just learn how to manage it."

[kelzama]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:20am

Oh, Buscee, your high school civics teacher should be fired. Either that, or you weren't paying attention much.

In the United States, we have a graduated tax system, which means the more you make, the more you pay. There is a point (around $30k and under, I think) that you don't pay anything in Federal taxes. Yes, it gets taken out, but it's refunded. Excepting Social Security of course.

There are many proponents of a flat tax system, i.e. we all pay the same rate, but it's not going to pass legislation anytime soon.

[tagiunagi]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:21am

Massages?? Parties? If your complaining about not making enough money in NYC, then you'll need to get rid of these "luxuries."

[kelzama]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:22am

double. Updated On: 12/16/05 at 11:22 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:24am

massages are a necessary part of a dancer's life. if you dont get them, you shorten your career.

parties are where you meet people. can't do without them.

yes, there are ways to save (go to the massage school and go to the party and order a water), but it still doesn't take away the expense.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:29am

Keep in mind that according to equity the percentage of performers who are employed at any given time is extremely low. So I guess, if you can live while being a performer, it all depends on how wealthy your family is.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:07pm

I remember a thread like this one on this board around this time last year. This topic seems to invite the bitter and disenfranchised.

I agree that $1422 is a decent amount of money and you can live comfortably on that. You can pay your rent and pay your bills and you might even be able to afford a small morgage on a house in Jersey and put a little bit in savings but no one making equity minimum will ever become wealthy from performing in a Broadway show.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:12pm

""How hard is living while being a performer?""

Let's take out some of the "I don't make that much" "If you can't make it on 70K's" and answer the question.

If you are making 70K in any job that is guaranteed by a long standing contract over a period of years with perks that's a more than decent average income. But...take about 30% out for taxes, possibly union dues, co-pay health benefits and you are chipping aways at that gross income to the tune of about $55,000.

For a single person or family, that's still not bad if you're living expenses IE: income/debt ratio is within reason.

Now... apply this to a family of 3 or 4. Many Broadway performers live in city or in a moderately costly suburb with their families. $70K, before expenses even on a continual yearly basis is not considered a high income bracket by any means, but more of a mid to upper range.

Again, apply this to Equity actors... There's no guarantee beyond a 6 mos. renewable contract that you will have that $70K next year. Unless you have the luxury and smarts to invest while you'er in the money (some leads make much more), $70K for a family man/woman won't get you through too many years of "waiting in the wings" for another Equity gig.

PLUS...the older actors get, the younger they are casting roles; a fact no one can escape. Thus the reason many once great leading actors are re-inventing themselves via concerts, directing, resident actors with theater schools, facilities etc.


So....it's all relative to what your expenses are and the risk of future job security.

This is the reality of a living on an actor's income. I work with many of them and that's the real deal.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:12 PM

[mafiadiva2]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:15pm

this thread compelled me to make a response. mostly because the finincial side of show business seems to be frequently misrepresented.

let me preface this by saying, i am a single person in their mid twenties...with no dependents. supporting a family on this contract would be very difficult. but i've seen people do it. they just have REALLY long commutes to work and may have to be even more conservative about "luxuries" like taking a taxi or having that 7 dollar glass of wine after the show.

speaking as someone currently working on the pink contract with the base salary being 1433, i certainly do not have room to live large, but indeed comfortably. after agent pay out and taxes, my check is reduced to around 750 a week...which means two weeks of work just barely covers the rent and utilities (no cable or internet mind you...if you are wondering how i am online, i'm at a complimentary wi-fi location at the moment) on my studio apt. then i also have a cell phone bill as well as a gym fee to pay montly...don't forget that 80 dollar subway pass...right there you rack up another 300 dollars. that leaves you with roughly $1200 dollars in disposable income. so lets say groceries/drug store necessities rack up $60 a week...bye bye to another $240...so here we are at $960...which is easy to spend in a NY minute between taxis and the occasional dinner out. and for someone thinking about the future, afterall i won't always be on a production contract, i stick $500 into my 401K per month (plus i look forward to a pretty generous tax return)....so that fun money gets reduced to $460....nothing to complain about, but lets just say i'm still wearing gap, not gucci....still eating tuna fish, not caviar.

but do i care? nope. i'd rather be onstage than behind a bar anyday...and believe me, bartending can be more lucrative at the right place! sure, if someone wanted to pay the chorus more, i'd be all for it, but when you're passionate about what you do there are so many other riches that come your way.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:19pm

No actor except at the highest levels should expect to live on that salary for a long period of time. Most of the actors you think of as New York theater "names" have other jobs besides the stage. Voice overs, commercials, tv/film work, audiobooks - do you really think that you are supposed to do your show for (as was mentioned) six months and then not work at all for another six months and have saved half of your salary for that purpose? That's not how it works. If you are not a chorus performer who goes from show to show, or stays in a long-running show for years, then you have other sources of income. You don't just audition and take classes and wait and hope for the next theater job.

It's just ridiculous to make that statement that actors only work a certain percentage of the time. You have to have other skills and sources of income for the downtimes. And $1422 a week IS good money. It's not any production company's responsibility to keep up the paycheck for you when the show ends (which is what is implied with the argument that actors jobs aren't usually long-lasting). That's what the business is. If you choose it, you know that, and you know that you're not going to be on Broadway all the time unless you're very lucky.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:19pm

Well said, Mafiadiva2. $1422 is a decent amount of money for a single person to live on. I would hate to think about trying to do it if I had a family to support.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:19 PM

[moljul]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:29pm

Mafiadiva, Thank you for that very rational response with real examples. What I'm finding shocking about some people's responses on this thread is that they are not taking into account that many people (I would guess a majority) live in NYC on less than that with a family to support and premiums to pay and futures to think about, etc. For the average person to make that kind of money in their 40s and 50s is pretty good. For a 25 year old to make it, well that is amazing. There are few industries where a starting salary would be that high and it would take years of raises to get close to it. $1400 is a MINIMUM not the average salary of a Broadway actor. True they will never get weatlthy being a working Broadway actor but if they are successful in that they work fairly constantly (and dont' become a "star") they will have a comfortable life. And yes, you may only have that contract for 6 months but I'm assuming you work at another "survival job" when you don't have a work as an actor so its not like you can't bring money in during those lean months. Sure it is less than the equity minimum but if you plan right and save when you are on Broadway it all works out to a decent yearly salary that is a lot more than a lot of New Yorkers, working just as hard at their jobs.

And as for the massages, I understand they help your career longevity and that a dancer particularly has a very physically demanding and body battering job but there are people who work very physically grueling jobs where massages would greatly help them as well and prolong the number of years they can work but if you can't afford them, you can't afford them. Massages are a luxury. And everyone has to network to further their careers so your "We have to attend parties" is a pretty weak argument as well.

EDIT: MafiaDiva: in my response above when I say "your argument is weak, etc." I'm not meaning you. I'm responding to various other posts. Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:29 PM

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:54pm

Rath is right, of course! Even if you are in the highest income level as a lead, with a decent contract, most actors have agents/mrgs/publicist working the field for them. While they watch the ratings and direction of the show they might be currently in. And that's another hefty expense.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 1:10pm

It's funny that people have turned this into a "What are you complaining about?" thread. If you look at all the threads. NO one was ever complaining about $1433. As a matter of fact I said several times that it's a decent living. It's just that no one gets rich doing it. That's it. It wasn't that deep.

[moljul]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 1:20pm

Jazzy, I think if you read carefully there are two posters who feel living on $1400 a week is "difficult" and paying Broadway performers that amount is "disgraceful".

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 1:21pm

"That's what the business is. If you choose it, you know that, and you know that you're not going to be on Broadway all the time unless you're very lucky."

That's what I was trying to get at in my first post. It all boils down as to how much you really want to do this. I know many actors in Chicago are content with it as like a side job...something they do for fun when not working there day job. Like many jobs, it's hard to turn it into a successful career. I doubt even 5% of people who call themselves actors are actually employed as an actor at any given time.

[JBSinger]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 2:09pm

Well, if you got the job, you are set for a while (so SAVE).

Otherwise, it can be extremely difficult to live in NYC (and area) without steady income. It also depends on where you are wanting to/willing to live and HOW you want to live. I was a full-time performer & full-time Temp for about 6 years in NYC. Sometimes you strike a balance and sometimes its tough.

If you don't want to be a waiter, just make sure that you know Word,Excel, PowerPoint, can type reasonably well and have some decent Business attire (several dress shirts, a suit, nice shoes for guys/classy dresses-suits for girls). Temping can be great money and there are generally perks depending on the firm.

Good luck.

[kelzama]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 3:13pm

The biggest lament of the Broadway performers that I know is that financial planning education was sorely lacking. So for all you youngsters and Broadway wannabes, learn how to invest and manage all that money you hope to make. Live for today, but save for tomorrow.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 3:18pm

Also, take note that that $1422 is for Broadway, and the market that employs most actors is Regional theater, where the salaries are lower.

Taken from "How to Be a Working Actor" by Mary Lyn Henry and Lynne Rogers:

"First some sobering facts before we begin: As we write this book, there are some 150,000 professional performers, be which we mean members of Actors' Equity Association (AEA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) in New York and Los Angeles and their locals and branches around the county. You should know that unemployment for performers greatly exceeds the national average. According to the unions' own reports, only 20 percent of the members earn more than $5,000 per year. Performers who earn more than $25,000 per year constitute about 8 percent of their membership. Only about 2,000 actors earn more than $100,00 per year. They are the ones you recognize working in commercials, and in major roles on soap operas; they're bakable names in feature films and staring on the Broadway stage."

For the mathematicall challenged:

30,000 actors out of the estimated 150,000 in unions are making more than $5,000 per year.

12,000 of them are making more than $25,000

and 2,000 of them are making $100,000 or more.

the rest of the 120,000 pro actors are making less that $5,000 annually.

yikes.


So, although that $1422 a week isn't that bad of a salary, the grand, grand majority of performers are NOT making that.


Updated On: 12/16/05 at 03:18 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 3:25pm

The original question was about the salary for a chorus member on Broadway, and how easy/difficult it is to survive on that salary in NYC.

Posted: 12/16/05 at 6:47pm

I just have a question about the cost of massages that are apparently very necessary for dancers. Isn't a medical massage like this covered under the health insurance you receive through Equity? If not, it should be.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 6:55pm

I believe it is, Glinda, and if not, it's at the very least a tax deduction, as are voice lessons, dance lessons, etc.