The Latest In Hollywood Mathematics: A 46.3% Employment Increase Equals 'Countless Jobs Lost'
from the what-is-this-i-don't-even dept
As Mike pointed out in his post concerning the "Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy" report, the entities behind the push for greater IP enforcement continue to deliver laughable numbers with a straight face, expecting legislators to accept these inflated "loss" numbers with complete credulity. Also par for the course is the chorus of supportive voices echoing the catch phrases and magical loss numbers contained in the report, starting out with Techdirt favorite Creative America, which revived its mostly dormant blog to drop some quotes from AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka on the continued "impact" of "digital theft" on "American jobs."Trumka delivered these remarks during the presentation of the report, taking time out to laud the "heavily unionized" but unsung heroes of the entertainment industry, especially those who make up the constantly-threatened demographic of "middle class professions." Trumka does the usual "it's not movie stars, it's the heavily unionized middle class" that suffers the most when infringement occurs, touching on the "downstream revenues" that provide the unsung heroes with their income. And he drops the almost-obligatory (and always unchallenged) statement expressing just how many jobs have been lost to "digital theft:"
But along with billions of dollars each year, digital theft has cost the U.S. entertainment industry countless jobs.I'm inclined to agree with Trumka's estimate on lost jobs. It certainly is "countless." No one trotting out this anti-piracy trope seems to be able to provide anything more specific than "billions of dollars" and "countless jobs." You know, the Bureau of Labor does a little counting now and then and, according to its reported figures, the movie and music industries employ slightly over 400,000 people, all of whom have lost their jobs to digital theft within the past half decade, if statements like Trumka's are to be believed.
Of course, the more Trumka says, the further away he travels from anything resembling a "fact." His "corroborating evidence" speeds past the exit marked "Last Normal Talking Point for 500 Miles" and heads straight for the Hollywood suburb of Pure Speculation:
A 2011 report from the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated conservatively that if China protected intellectual property as the U.S. does, there would be approximately 923,000 new U.S. jobs.So, if we're going to take this report at face value, the entertainment industry isn't actually losing any jobs, it's just failing to create new ones. I haven't "lost" every job I've never been hired for. Trying to claim that jobs "not created" is equal to "jobs lost" is the sort of last-ditch semantics deployed by spokesmen who know they've got nothing solid to work with. If Trumka's statements are taken at face value, simply getting China to play nice with American IP would more than triple the number of people employed by the movie and music industry.
What's even more confusing is that pro-IP groups can't even get their own numbers to paint the same picture. The Copyright Alliance blog has its own post dealing with the "Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy" report, which paints a very different picture.
Industries that rely heavily on patents, trademarks and copyrights have a significant impact on the economy and have a ripple employment effect to other industries not directly focused on IP. The report cited an employment increase of 46.3% among copyright-intensive industries between 1990 and 2011.OK... So, which is it? Is the US creative economy leaking jobs at an alarming rate or is it stronger than it's been in over 2 decades? If these industries can show an employment increase of 46.3% while weathering the threat of blank CDs, Napster, BitTorrent, the Pirate Bay, personal computers, DVD burners, streaming services, file lockers and, well, pretty much everything Google-related, than what seems to be the problem? Is China really eating our IP lunch? Are we somehow simultaneously losing and gaining entertainment jobs at such a breakneck pace that even those delivering talking points can't even get on the same page of the report?
Yes, in fairness, these numbers are looking at different things. Trumka refers directly to the "entertainment industry," which to the AFL-CIO generally refers to the motion picture industry, where unionization is more prevalent. The Copyright Alliance blog simply mentions "copyright intensive industries," which somehow include the same industries (software, computing) that took a stand against the last major "copyright intensive" legislation push, not to mention unrelated things like "dairy products". Nevertheless, there is quite the contradiction between the soothsaying on one end and the cheerleading on the other.
In the rush to make it appear as though many millions of Americans (40 million, according to their own numbers -- 20% of the nation's workforce) are somehow dependent on thriving "copyright intensive" industries, the cheerleading squad manages to contradict its own claims. Either the inclusion of the tech industry to the "copyright intensive" workforce is responsible for the entire 46.3% jump in employment (or more actually, considering "countless jobs lost"), or the entertainment industry (read: movies and music) isn't shedding workers quite as fast as the surrounding panic would indicate. In fact, the industries affected the most by"digital theft" seem to rise and fall at the same rate as "non-IP intensive" industries, as indicated by information included in the IP-sky-is-falling report.
![](https://i.imgur.com/hBUPc.png)
The final question remains: why would anyone believe these numbers? The jobs theoretically affected by "digital theft" range from the Bureau of Labor's reported 400K to the industries' own estimates, which vary from 5.1 million ("...creative community, including software, content and computing industries...") to a thoroughly ridiculous 40 million ("...IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs and contributing $5 trillion dollars to the economy..."). Without a true baseline, the numbers mean nothing. "Countless jobs lost" will remain unenumerated due to a lack of information, which works out just fine for the industries' lobbyists and spokesmen. Nothing's scarier than unspecified amounts. Leaving the job losses "countless" allows them to be as large as anyone wants, needs or imagines them to be.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: afl-cio, creative america, hollywood math, ip industries, richard trumka
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood math
Ok even though that was pretty amusing, the reality is even funnier.
Return of the Jedi Gross Revenue: $572 million and rising
Return of the Jedi Net Profit: $0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Science!!
*Grrr*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Science!!
That makes a rather large amount of sense, especially coming from somebody who's not paying me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science!!
No Theater Going
No Buying MAFIAA Products
Buying Only USED MAFIAA
Spending my Wallet on INDIE Stuff Only
Been doing this for years.Hope we see Millions doing this once Mr. Normal starts getting his new "6 Strikes Yer Out KRPA".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer: Ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who wouldn't accept such numbers when they are are generously wrapped in crisp new dollar bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also copyright is effected most by both increases and decreases in employment. But that's probably due more to entertainment being a luxury, and thus one of the first things cut from personal spending when times are tought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can people willing donate big bags of campaign cash POSSIBLY be wrong about something! Are you saying that companies like BP, who gave me over $10 million in campaign contributions, don't really know best about protecting our oceans from oil spills!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and there hangs the problem. the stupid, easily led, easily bought politicians, do accept these figures and the more they are 'encouraged' to accept them the more they spout the figures and back up the industries. if those on the 'reduce copyright' side of the fence were to hold as many meetings and give as many interviews as these people, a much more fair picture would emerge. as that doesn't happen, everyone that matters in law enforcement and politics are able to continue down this road unchallenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are correct. You can't count the amount of jobs lost if there aren't any to count.
Hence, countless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth about Hollywood's jobs numbers.
If infringement had any real effect, there would be a decrease in the number of productions and real yearly employment. However, the numbers just don't show it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth about Hollywood's jobs numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood mathematics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood mathematics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UNIONS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still think their copyright positions are fundamentally awful, and I'd be looking for evidence that employment is actually impacted in the way they claim. But it's still a good idea to be wary of hypocrisy in argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unions yes - MAFIAA bullshit no!
I find it especially disingenuous their statements about the Chinese market. Although this is the largest growing and potentially lucrative new market, who is deluded enough to think they can afford to pay first-world prices for our content? And once they get their own production capability fully up and running they will be creating their own content, they may even become a net exporter to us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you care to explain what all is including in the "IP intensive industries"?
This is the type of crap you call the **AAs out on all the time - why are you allowing something so vague to be used to damn them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh but imagine if we were allowed to count those in the unemployment numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
winners and losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of which would immediately be offshored to countries with lower wages and fewer safety rules so they could employee as few as 300,000 people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We didn't make as much money as we wanted too, we didn't create as many new jobs as we could have (not that the realy want to create more jobs since that would eat into their profit margins).
Why am I seeing Southpark in my head "They took my JOB", I can only assume this is the reaction they were going for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]