GOP Senators Reject Paycheck Fairness Even As Their Personal Wealth Rises


Yesterday during a roll call vote, each and every Senate Democrat–with the exception of Senator Ben Nelson (D-ND)–rose to vote in favor of cloture (closing debate in advance of a vote) and of holding a vote on passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

And every single Republican Senator rose to vote against.  Because of a 60-vote requirement, the Senate failed to invoke cloture and the Paycheck Fairness Act failed.

But don’t worry.  It was no sweat off the backs of GOP Senators, many of whom are multimillionaires, and who work in an institution in which everyone knows what everyone else makes, and there is no gender gap in pay.

In the Senate, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who sits on the Senate Finance, Intelligence, Commerce, and Small Business committees gets paid the same amount as Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Max Baucus (D-MT), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) and every other currently serving Senator, no matter on which committee(s) they sit, or how important their committee currently is in relation to a given set of national issues.

Each of these Senators makes $173,000 per year, unless they are in leadership, in which case they make $193,000 per year, assuming additional responsibilities. That doesn’t include full health care benefits or other perks of office.

They all have pay equity. They get paid the same amount for roughly equal work and because transparency is assured, they know why and when someone gets paid more. Though this may be different in some ways than merit-based pay scales in many situations, the principles are the same: equity, fairness, transparency.

Moreover, for many Senators, their otherwise quite substantial government paycheck is, quite literally, chump change.

A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics of federal financial disclosures released earlier this year shows that despite the persistently bad economy, the collective personal wealth of congressional members increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009. 

Nearly half — 261 out of 535 members of Congress — are millionaires, a slight increase from the previous year, the Center’s study finds.  Compare this share–nearly half–to the share of the total population–roughly one percent–of Americans who lay claim to the same “lofty fiscal status.” And “of these congressional millionaires,” notes the Center, “55 have an average calculated wealth in 2009 of $10 million or more, with eight in the $100 million-plus range.”

“Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial ills – unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings – that have befallen millions of Americans,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics’ executive director. “Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents.”

In 2009, the median wealth of a U.S. House member stood at $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008.

The median wealth of a U.S. senator was nearly $2.38 million, up from $2.27 million in 2008.

What is the median net worth of the average US family?  Less than $48,000.

Wealth is lower and poverty higher among working women than among working men.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2007, women still earned only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gap that has been reduced by a mere 19 cents in the nearly 50 years since 1963, when the wage gap based on sex was 59 cents on the dollar.

Moreover, according to the Census, Bureau:

Most women of color experience even more severe inequities: African-American women earned only 68.7 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2005, Hispanic women earned only 59 cents, and Asian American women earned 89.5 cents.

This gap in earnings translates into $10,622 less per year (on average since this varies by state) in female median earnings, leaving women and their families shortchanged.

The gender gap in wages has huge economic implications, especially today, with a weak economy, record unemployment, stagnating or declining wages, and a growing number of families dependent on the wages brought home by a woman, whose roles as mother and perhaps wife, partner, or caregiver to elderly relatives are no less diminished by the fact that she is also, increasingly, the sole or critical income earner in her family.  For things like the rent or the mortgage, groceries, health care, transportation, and clothing.  Recent census data revealed that an increasing share of American families are single-female headed households and that an increasing share of these households are living in poverty.

According to the National Women’s Law Center, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced last year in both the House (H.R. 12) and the Senate (S. 182) and passed by the House thanks to the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was intended to address discriminatory pay practices that create and exacerbate these persistent gaps and increase poverty among women. The Act builds upon the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work. 

Among other things, the Paycheck Fairness Act was intended to:

  • allow victims of wage discrimination based on gender to receive full compensatory and punitive damages, as opposed to only liquidated damages and back pay awards, putting gender-based wage discrimination on equal footing with discrimination based on race and ethnicity;
  • make it easier for parties that have been discriminated against to work together through a class action suit by automatically considering members part of the class unless they choose to opt out, in keeping with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and close loopholes in how discrimination is counted by clarifying that a gender differential in pay within a company need not be within the same facility to count as discrimination; and
  • facilitate detection of pay discrimination by prohibiting punishment of employees who share salary information with coworkers, by requiring employers to submit pay data by race, sex, and national origin to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and by reinstating collection of gender-based data in the Current Employment Statistics Survey.

The urgent need to close the gender gap in wages apparently did not phase members of the Senate GOP, or Mr. Nelson, who is another story altogether.  Even Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) (all of whom voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act) and the one female GOP Senator who voted against the Ledbetter Act, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) all voted yesterday against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the personal wealth and political power of members of Congress is so deeply entwined with the companies whose practices are the source of the gender wage gap.

[T]he most popular investment among congressional members reads as a who’s who list of the most powerful corporate political forces in Washington, D.C. — companies that each spend millions, if not tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying federal officials. Many of them likewise donate millions of dollars to federal candidates each election cycle through their top employees and political action committees.

After all, 82 current members of Congress invested are invested in General Electric, 63 in Bank of America, 61 in Cisco Systems, 61 in Proctor & Gamble and 54 Microsoft, just to name a few of those for which data are provided by CRP, included among which also are BP, Apple, Coca Cola, Pepsi and others.

When your personal investments and your campaign war chest is dependent on the same corporate hand feeding both, you might not want to force those companies to have to do anything like paying their female employees a fair and equitable wage.  That might be “bad” for some one’s business.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • catseye71352

    Does anybody besides me remember when Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins _supported_ women’s rights? I can’t BELIEVE they sold us out this way!

  • alexandrea-merrell

    If you have done the research to identify the number of multimillionaires in the Senate, you would also know that 7 of the top 10 wealthiest Senators are in fact Democrats. In Congress, 8 of the top 10 wealthiest members are Democrats. To make a point of stating that “GOP Senators, many of whom are multimillionaires” rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act, suggests that their wealth and Republican status has rendered them incognizant of the plight of the working class.

     

    Republican’s rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act, not because they are wealthy and not because they are disconnected. Republican’s said NO to the Paycheck Fairness Act because it is anything but fair. It is not fair to employers or employees.

     

    The Paycheck Fairness Act would require even the smallest of businesses to submit reams of personal information and employment data to a new layer of federal regulators at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Small businesses in particular, would fair poorly as in an already strained economic climate, they would face additional costs by having to hire legal specialist to help them compile and submit the complex paperwork. And of course there will be fines for failure to comply.

     

    When businesses determine salaries, they do so using many variables; experience, education, previous success, productivity, and even personality. To attempt to force a one size fits all approach to employees rewards those with less experience, ambition, and productivity and penalizes those who have more. Do you really believe that if employers are forced to pay everyone, despite all of the variables, the same amount, that they will raise everyone’s wage to meet the highest earners? No, they lower everyone’s wages to match the lowest earners. This is the death of a competitive based system and the end of ambition.

     

    The Paycheck Fairness Act also ends any semblance of privacy, as it forces the disclosure of salary information for all employees. This only breeds contempt and animosity between employees and their co-workers. And in a litigious society, it exposes businesses to yet another constant threat of law suit.

     

    These are the reasons that Republicans rejected the Act. Not because they are multimillionaires, not because they are disconnected. As a woman and as a business owner, I understand and applaud the concept of equal pay for equal work. But the Paycheck Fairness Act does not accomplish this. Suggesting that it does and that evil, multimillionaire Republicans have destroyed that dream is irresponsible, needlessly partisan, and disingenuous.

     

    http://www.AlexandreaMerrell.com

     

  • saltyc

    When businesses determine salaries, they do so using many variables; experience, education, previous success, productivity, and even personality.

    And the fact, or the perceived fact that women will work for less. I have overheard employers say this as matter-of-fact. This is unacceptable. The bias is real and counter-productive for competitiveness, nevermind bad for women and bad for children, and unfair

    The Paycheck Fairness Act also ends any semblance of privacy, as it forces the disclosure of salary information for all employees. This only breeds contempt and animosity between employees and their co-workers.

    Where does it say that employees will have access to their fellow employee’s salaries? And anyway, I don’t see that as a violation of privacy, people should know how much their peers make. If it breeds animosity, it may be for good reason. If a peer who works half of what I do makes more there should be a very good reason for it or I’m walking. Just what is being protected here but an employer’s arbitrary favoritism, politics and croneyism, which are not good for productivity. If salary secrecy is necessary for morale, there’s obviously something very wrong. I have always been open about how much I make, and there’s no reason for this to be private. Privacy over one’s salary is just a bizarre anomaly in American culture, which only benefits bosses who want to play politics in the office.

    needlessly partisan

    Um…. but…. 100% of Republicans opposed it and the Democrats would have passed it.

    I understand and applaud the concept of equal pay for equal work.

    Do you understand it and applaud it to the extent of having a better way of making it happen?

    The Paycheck Fairness Act would require even the smallest of businesses to submit reams of personal information and employment data to a new layer of federal regulators at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Small businesses in particular, would fair poorly as in an already strained economic climate, they would face additional costs by having to hire legal specialist to help them compile and submit the complex paperwork. And of course there will be fines for failure to comply.

    Oh please, I call bull.

  • alexandrea-merrell

    And the fact, or the perceived fact that women will work for less. I have overheard employers say this as matter-of-fact. This is unacceptable. The bias is real and counter-productive for competitiveness, let alone bad for women and bad for children, and unfair

     

    So I can assume that these employers that you have overheard have predominately female staff? If the claim is that women will do the same job for less money, businesses, especially in a tough economic climate would hire disproportionately large numbers of women. They would let go of their more expensive male staff in favor of the cheaper female labor.

     

    Privacy over one’s salary is just a bizarre anomaly in American culture, which only benefits bosses who want to play politics in the office.

     

    Having lived much of the past decade in Europe I can tell you that salary privacy is NOT “a bizarre anomaly in American culture.” People worldwide value their privacy.

     

    I have worked in sales offices where everyone made the same salary whether they sold any products of not. The result? No one sold products. People didn’t see the benefit of putting in extra effort if everyone would be rewarded the same way whether they produced or not.

     

    And let’s not kid ourselves. We all work with people who we feel don’t meet standards, who don’t work as hard as we do, who don’t perform their tasks as well as we would do them. A lack of privacy turns managers and employers into nursery school monitors who have to spend their time dealing with “she doesn’t work as hard as I do….I should get a higher salary” or “Its not fair that the office manager makes more money when I do just as much work in shipping.”

     

    Um…. but…. 100% of Republicans opposed it and the Democrats would have passed it.

     

    Yes, and if the article had simply said “100% of Republicans opposed it,” that would have been perfectly acceptable. Republicans (despite some bad apples and deviation in the past) believe in smaller government and less federal intrusion. THAT is why they rejected the Act. To state THAT would have shown journalist integrity.

     

    However the author seeks to suggest that wealth is the motivating factor claiming millionaire Republican Senators rejected the bill. Where is the mention that the Democrats who supported the bill are also millionaires? The individual wealth of the politicians has nothing to do with their position. And to point it out the wealth of one side is disingenuous and misleading to readers who may not be aware that the majority of millionaires in the Senate and Congress are in fact Democrats. Do you believe that reducing this issue to classism will solve the problem?

     

    Do you understand it and applaud it to the extent of having a better way of making it happen?

     

    Let’s honestly examine the statistics.

     

    Jane is a 40 year old female engineer who took 5 years off midcareer to have a child and staid home until the child entered grade school. Should she make the same salary as engineer’s Pete (male) and Shelia (female) who didn’t take five years off?  Jane has 5 years less experience, 5 years less training, 5 years less networking, etc etc etc. So what do we do?

     

    Under the PFA, Jane’s employer would be forced to pay Jane the same amount in wages as Pete and Shelia. How would this be accomplished? Should we lower Pete and Shelia’s salary to equal Jane’s? They do the same job? So now Pete and Shelia are penalized. That wouldn’t be fair.

     

    Or maybe the employer should raise Jane’s salary to match Pete & Shelia’s? So she is rewarded unfairly for work in which she never engaged.

     

    Somehow this version of “equality” seems equally unfair to all.

     

    You asked me if I had a better why to make it happen? Actually I do. Instead of lobbing yet more federal regulation onto employers (which means less jobs for everyone), how about we stop looking to the government to solve problems?

     

    1. Stop teaching people that they are owed equality. The Constitution guarantees people equal opportunity, not equal result.

     

    1. Spend more time teaching children about their personal responsibilities and less about false entitlements. When young people understand that their choices, including the choice to have children, come with financial realities, career implications, and lifelong obligations, perhaps they will make better life decisions.

     

    1. As women, if we feel that we are not being paid fairly, we have the right to negotiate our salaries, look for other employment opportunities, or even start our own businesses.

    I responded to the article because the author chose to be dishonest about the reason for the GOP rejecting the Paycheck Fairness Act and disingenuous in her description of the Senators. That sort of “journalism” doesn’t do anyone any favors. There is plenty of honest debate on this issue without stooping to partisan reporting.

  • saltyc

    So I can assume that these employers that you have overheard have predominately female staff? If the claim is that women will do the same job for less money, businesses, especially in a tough economic climate would hire disproportionately large numbers of women.

    No, because the field I worked in is predominately male (only 10% of workers are female) and it’s hard to find female workers, though they wanted to pay them less. PS I left. So, you assumed and were wrong.

    A lack of privacy turns managers and employers into nursery school monitors who have to spend their time dealing with “she doesn’t work as hard as I do….I should get a higher salary” or “Its not fair that the office manager makes more money when I do just as much work in shipping.”

    Is this a fairytale bosses tell their children? Really, please it’s absurd. If you can’t keep people happy without secrecy and intrigue, you’re a lousy manager. I guess a professor’s job would be easier to give arbitrary and capricious grades if all students were required to keep their grades secret. Or you could be open and honest and compensate fairly.

    I have worked in sales offices where everyone made the same salary whether they sold any products of not. The result? No one sold products.

    Strawman#1:  Nobody is demanding equal pay regardless of performance. nice try.

    Let’s honestly examine the statistics.

    Whoa! For a second there I thought you were about to cite statistics. Honestly!

    Jane is a 40 year old female engineer who took 5 years off midcareer to have a child and staid home until the child entered grade school. Should she make the same salary as engineer’s Pete (male) and Shelia (female) who didn’t take five years off?  Jane has 5 years less experience, 5 years less training, 5 years less networking, etc etc etc. So what do we do?

     

    Under the PFA, Jane’s employer would be forced to pay Jane the same amount in wages as Pete and Shelia

    Oops! Strawman # 2. Actually it would not. You can’t just make stuff up and say it’s so.

     

    1. As women, if we feel that we are not being paid fairly, we have the right to negotiate our salaries, look for other employment opportunities, or even start our own businesses.

     

    Yeah, I have heard this ill-founded myth before that if women just asked or demanded the pay we deserve, we’d be able to negotiate, but when I tried asking for more I never got anything, so I have voted with my feet many times, and former employers have suffered my loss and my having to move repeatedly has cost me, but I resent not being payed what I’m worth because of the shape of my genitals and I keep moving.

    The rest of your “solutions” are the stale, rehashed arguments that the less privileged only have themsleves to blame. To say that the solution is people should make better decisions is to imply that they have good choices and to ignore the double binds that exist. It reeks of denial of your own privilege. Yes that’s an assumption on my part…

    Edited: Actually the notion that employers shouldn’t be made to correct their biases may not come from privilege: It might be the fourth kind of bias outlined in the Gender Bias Learning Project: pitting women who have “made it” by the old rules against women succeeding without the disadvantages. Because they have a lot invested in keeping the game the way it was when they struggled. Why should tomorrow’s women have it easier?

     

    And the argument that a rich person who doesn’t care about working stiffs probably doesn’t know what it’s like because he’s rich holds, no matter how many rich people do care actually about us. So you have no points at all.

  • alexandrea-merrell

    No, because the field I worked in is predominately male (only 10% of workers are female) and it’s hard to find female workers, though they wanted to pay them less. PS I left. So, you assumed and were wrong.

    But the Paycheck Fairness Act isn’t about YOU or your personal situation. It is about women across the entire work spectrum. Assuming that ALL women face the same situation simply because you feel that you might have been unfairly paid is egotistical and frankly, ridiculous.

     

    You exercised your rights and left. Good for you. And you did so without needing the government to intervene. Thumbs up!

     

    Yeah, I have heard this ill-founded myth before that if women just asked or demanded the pay we deserve, we’d be able to negotiate, but when I tried asking for more I never got anything, so I have voted with my feet many times, and former employers have suffered my loss and my having to move repeatedly has cost me, but I resent not being payed what I’m worth because of the shape of my genitals and I keep moving.

     

    Great! The system worked. You went to your employer and asked for a raise. For any number of reasons, your employer was either unable or unwilling to meet your request and you decided to leave. That is your right as an American. You don’t have to stay in an employment situation. That is also their right as employers, they don’t have to increase your salary or extend additional benefits to you outside of your original contract, unless they want to do so.

     

    Again, you try and base the entire system on your personal situation. You claim to have left employment “many times.” Is it possible that your checkered employment history and lack of long term employment was a bigger factor then gender, in not getting more money?  Employers generally don’t reward migrant workers. I would also guess that employers don’t appreciate an employee who chooses to work in a predominately male environment and then makes statements suggesting that the “shape of my genitals” has influenced their salary. You have the right to work in a predominately male environment if you wish, but then you can’t be surprised if you have minority status.

     

    The rest of your “solutions” are the stale, rehashed arguments that the less privileged only have themsleves to blame. To say that the solution is people should make better decisions is to imply that they have good choices and to ignore the double binds that exist. It reeks of denial of your own privilege. Yes that’s an assumption on my part…

     

    Hummm interesting, so because we don’t agree, I am privileged? I never mentioned any sort of financial or societal groups at all. I stated quite clearly that people should be taught that their actions have consequences so that they can make informed decisions. Today in schools children are taught about their “rights” but not about their responsibilities. The result is that several generations of young people do “whatever feels good” or only consider the short term gains and then are baffled when they find their options are minimized by poorly made decisions. This isn’t about privilege. It is a problem across society.

     

    I am far from “privileged” but I do accept that my choices (some of them poor choices) have limited the options available to me. Sometimes I have made bad choices through lack of options, other times through ignorance. But I don’t look to others to blame or make me financially equal to those who didn’t make bad choices.

     

    On the flip side, I don’t owe my successes to artificial equalization devices either.

    

    Gender Bias Learning Project: pitting women who have “made it” by the old rules against women succeeding without the disadvantages. Because they have a lot invested in keeping the game the way it was when they struggled. Why should tomorrow’s women have it easier?

    

     

    Seriously? If it wasn’t so laughable it would be insulting. Many women who have “made it” give their time to mentor young women, donate money to organizations like “Dress for Success,” and do a great deal to promote opportunities for women in business. One of the problems in out society is that programs like the “Gender Bias Learning Project” trains people to see themselves as victims or oppressed.

     

    As I have stated already, I wrote my initial response to the article because the author was very biased in stating that millionaire Republicans rejected the Act and insinuated that it was rejected because of Republican wealth. The GOP listened to their constituents and rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act because it represents exactly what conservatives oppose, bigger government and more intrusion into our personal lives.

     

    Your personal situation is no more relevant than my personal situation when it comes to the passage or rejection of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The GOP Senators did the job for which they were elected. To suggest that the rejection was about wealth or privilege is simply dishonest.

     

  • alexandrea-merrell

    This thread has deviated from the initial post which was about the lack of journalistic integrity in the article.

    As I have stated already, I wrote my initial response to the article because the author was very biased in stating that millionaire Republicans rejected the Act and insinuated that it was rejected because of Republican wealth. The GOP listened to their constituents and rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act because it represents exactly what conservatives oppose, bigger government and more intrusion into our personal lives.

     

    Your personal situation is no more relevant than my personal situation when it comes to the passage or rejection of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The GOP Senators did the job for which they were elected. To suggest that the rejection was about wealth or privilege is simply dishonest.

    We can respectfully agree to disagree.

  • saltyc

    Is it possible that your checkered employment history and lack of long term employment was a bigger factor then gender, in not getting more money?  Employers generally don’t reward migrant workers. I would also guess that employers don’t appreciate an employee who chooses to work in a predominately male environment and then makes statements suggesting that the “shape of my genitals” has influenced their salary. You have the right to work in a predominately male environment if you wish, but then you can’t be surprised if you have minority status.

    You’re not convincing me that you don’t want this to be about me.

    And no, you’re not privileged because you disagree with me. You’re privileged whether or not I exist.

    Anyway, I think I’ve already exhausted this topic.  I am proud of my career, which, BTW, was video game development (that’s where only 10% are women) and now I’m a tenure-track professor of animation but I reject your “thumbs up” that my leaving a job due to what I suspect was gender bias is the system “working.”

     

  • colleen

    We can respectfully agree to disagree.

    I wish that you had.

  • ahunt

    Alexandrea needs to keep up on the research. As it happens, women who put themselves forward, seeking raises, are percieved to be ball-busting bitches. Catch 22. Women are blamed for their own lack of initiative, but any attempts to present the case for higher pay is viewed negatively.

  • ack

    She also thinks racial profiling of Hispanic people is fine and refers to the “rape and pillage” of the women’s movement by “ultra-liberals,” without any consideration that…

    Abortion is a women’s issue.

    Social programs are women’s issues.

    The integration of a more complex understanding of oppression beyond patriarchy into feminism is NOT A BAD THING.

    Making comparisons to rape is completely unacceptable when you’re trying to make a statement about women’s issues.

  • ahunt

    Well, let us also note that every methodologically sound study out there (and there are many) demonstrates that the work of women is rated higher if the evaluators are judging under the assumption that the work was done by a man…and oh look!… Alexandrea’s arguments become mere talking points.

  • ahunt

    Sorry Ack…meant to hit the highest rating. My bad.

  • ack

    :)  and thanks for the accolades.

  • arekushieru

    Edited: Actually the notion that employers shouldn’t be made to correct their biases may not come from privilege: It might be the fourth kind of bias outlined in the Gender Bias Learning Project: pitting women who have “made it” by the old rules against women succeeding without the disadvantages. Because they have a lot invested in keeping the game the way it was when they struggled. Why should tomorrow’s women have it easier?

    That actually still sounds like privilege, though….  The employer is ‘rich’ in a way the employee is not, after all.  It’s much like you said, the employer may care about the employee but that doesn’t mean that the one who doesn’t isn’t coming from his/her/it/their position of authority.

  • arekushieru

    Ahunt, you can change the ratings.  :)  You can even cancel them out, altogether.

  • ahunt

    Luddite here. Thanks A.

  • princess-rot

    Wow, Salty, the things I learn on the internet. I had no idea there were other feminists who work/ed in game design AND were into repro justice! Small world.

    I’ve got a first in illustration and 3D design (majored in concept art) from a small crunchy UK liberal arts college. I’m building up my portfolio from scratch and working making minimum-wage at a small auto garage’s front desk, because of my mountain of debt. Doing the occasional car service, fielding phone calls and filing paperwork is not the way I’d imagined I’d be going. How did you get into it, if you don’t mind me asking? I’m not very hopeful. I’m aware of how sexist the world can be.

  • saltyc

    I got into it long ago when it was easy if you had talent. Now it’s much more competititve and more of a man’s world but I still encourage women to enter it because it is very creative and challenging, and hopefully it will change. It’s bizarre that though 30-50% of game players are women, only 10% of game developers are. But it’s still a rewarding field if you are young. Just make a kick-ass demo reel, no more than 4 minutes, preferably in blu-ray, target companies that fit your talent, target many many companies and send them your work, followed up by calls to the HR person to make sure they have it and ask them about their current openings. It can take a couple years to get in.

  • princess-rot

    I’ve a fifty-piece strong portfolio of digital (printed) concept art that I need to turn into a show reel, and a few animated models to spruce up. Blu-ray, ya say? My computer reads BR but doesn’t burn it.

    It can take a couple years to get in.

    Thought it’d be something like that. Most of my college friends are in the same boat. I’ll continue working, maybe I’ll be able to afford to do a grad course.

    Thanks, though. I’ll stop derailing now.

  • beenthere72

    Move to New England and work for a Red Sox legend:

     

    http://38studios.com/jobs

     

    ;-)

  • catseye71352

    You can use the button on the way-far left to cancel your vote and re-do it.