Capitalism: A Love Story

[Skykid]

So... I get paid nearly double that of a US commercial airline pilot for sitting behind my desk all day?

Exchange rates and domestic pricing taken into account, that's still the most startling bit of info I've heard in ages.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't quite make this clear:

My apologies, I should make the first post clearer.
According to the Michael Moore film Capitalism: A Love Story, a US commercial airline pilot makes $19,000 dollars annually - a shockingly low figure. It's not that I have a good wage (I'm well below the UK's average earning figure) but that they have an appalling one.

[Jockel]

Sounds like you deserve your top hat, sir.
I on the other hand am fucked- studied education for 3 years and the usual wage is about 1000-1400€...
If i had known the payment was going to be THAT shitty i would have never studied it.

[DEL]

Edit:- I'll watch the film and check back in.

[Skykid]

Sounds like you deserve your top hat, sir.

My apologies, I should make the first post clearer.
According to the Michael Moore film Capitalism: A Love Story, a US commercial airline pilot makes $19,000 dollars annually - a shockingly low figure. It's not that I have a good wage (I'm well below the UK's average earning figure) but that they have an appalling one.

you may get paid well for sitting behind your desk, but most office workers are the poorest people around.

I don't, I get paid just enough to live within the basic tax band. My fault for assuming people would have already seen (and remembered) the film. Sorry!

[Jockel]

Yup, cause you'd assume that pilots earn a pretty decent wage- at least in germany, they do.

[brokenhalo]

truly an excellent film all-around. i wish all the so-called republican politicians (who are really just anti-democrats at this point) would be forced to watch this and sicko. maybe a few of them would pull their heads out of their asses.

one of the more interesting things in this film is the segment on how the wall street bailout was engineered by the former heads of wall street. it's like giving the wolves the key to the hen house. and then when michael interviews the lady who is responsible for overseeing bailout spending, she looks like she's about to cry when she explains that no one has any idea what the banks are doing with the bailout money because they are not required to report to anyone. kind of jarring to see a high-ranking politician that distressed.

but back OT: it's scary to see how little a commercial airline pilot is paid, and it can all be linked to to the systematic destruction of the unions. the vast majority of american union jobs were in trades and manufacturing. now manufacturing is near non-existant in this country and the service industry has become the number one employment opportunity. problem is the unions can't seem to penetrate the wal-marts or the home depots, so the vast majority of workers are not being represented at their jobs and the corporations have free reign. there was a lowes up in canada a few years back where the workers did successfully form a union. lowes immediately came to the decision that that particular store was "under-performing" and shut it down. this scared a lot of would-be organizers. if the unions could start to penetrate these corporations, it would go a long way to help right this economy. but with unemployment so high right now the last thing any of us want to do is piss off the company that employs us. so we're stuck for now.

[ncp]

here we go again

[Skykid]

here we go again

I was surprised by the state of middle class America. I didn't actually believe all the stories of people living on borrowed credit, but with home foreclosures every 7 and a 1/2 seconds it does make me wonder.

What was interesting were the differences between European law and the power of government and state compared to the US, where blue chip corporations appear to be above the law. Why the government can't/won't step in is either because they're genuinely powerless to help citizens being preyed upon by ruthless organisations or because they're corrupt from the core and the bankers have the politicians in their pockets. I suppose after congress denied the bankers bailout plea and then they suddenly got the full amount they asked for points to one logical conclusion.


The film was excellent, and it actually made me view the UK in a slightly different light. Usually I'm cynical about the shortcomings of the government here, but the middle classes (and to some extent the working classes) appear to be more balanced and live on a fairer system.

[GaijinPunch]

$19,000 a year? That sounds wrong. My mom is a flight attendant. She was saying they make pretty good bank.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_mone ... pilot_earn

[Skykid]

$19,000 a year? That sounds wrong. My mom is a flight attendant. She was saying they make pretty good bank.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_mone ... pilot_earn

Sounds wrong to me too, but that's what these people claimed to earn. Perhaps they're starting out and flying regional commercial flights?

In the civilian career path progression, a pilot will usually work at a regional carrier before moving on to a major airline. Regional new hires make close to $20K a year to start! While some regional pay close to $30K after 3 years or so, it takes several years at other to make that much. Starting out in this career one must expect to make some very low wages until they begin to build seniority with their airline and move up the pay scale

Even as a starting wage, its still obscene. There are guys here who make more than that sitting behind a supermarket checkout.

[sven666]

i dont believe it, there is something else to that 19K that isnt shown, its a base ammount with some sort of addition proboably.. like a salesmans salary.
I havent seen the movie tho.

in this day and age everyone wants to portray their line of work as underpaid shmoes just to avoid the dirty press thats currently around making lots of money.
Im sorry but being a pilot or a doctor or an engineer or something similar (that requires a higher education) and getting paid peanuts against your will only mean youre an idiot getting taken advantage of.

idiots and people who prey on them will always be around..

[Skykid]

i dont believe it, there is something else to that 19K that isnt shown, its a base ammount with some sort of addition proboably.. like a salesmans salary.
I havent seen the movie tho.

in this day and age everyone wants to portray their line of work as underpaid shmoes just to avoid the dirty press thats currently around making lots of money.
Im sorry but being a pilot or a doctor or an engineer or something similar (that requires a higher education) and getting paid peanuts against your will only mean youre an idiot getting taken advantage of.

idiots and people who prey on them will always be around..

You're right, but depending on your environment, you may have different ideas about what is an acceptable wage. Definitely watch the film if you get the chance Sven, it's enlightening.

[GaijinPunch]

You're right, but depending on your environment, you may have different ideas about what is an acceptable wage

Yes, but it sounds like they gave you a cold hard number. Anyways, I know what this means for me: no more deals for Skykid since you're making such bank.

[Ed Oscuro]

Michael Moore has been wrong before (no intentional rhyme there).

Anybody remember how Roger & Me became more like Who Skinned Roger the Rabbit? He even did meet the Roger of the film but since it didn't fit his message he left that fairly important bit out.

Then there's the shameful saga of his repeating a claim that a plaque on a bomber plane was glorifying the killing of civilians or some garbage, when it actually shot down an attacking Mig during the Vietnam war with 50 caliber machine guns, where almost always the crew would have ended up dying. He was corrected on this but still repeated it later. This was Bowling for Columbine, I believe.

Can't say I'm really thrilled about his latest work after having imagined his screeds against capitalism. Apparently there's no middle ground between the robber barons of the Gilded Age or Americans and Russians robbing the former Soviet Union bind in the 1990s, and the "worker's paradise" of countries like the GDR.

So, despite his being a hero for Flint, I'm half of the opinion to say fuck 'im.

p.s. ASSHOLES DRIVE IMPORTS

[BryanM]

Sounds wrong to me too, but that's what these people claimed to earn. Perhaps they're starting out and flying regional commercial flights?

Bingo bango. The guys flying 747's from Dallas to L.A. are the rockstars of the field. They get paid that much because they're old as hell, have a decade or more of experience, and a smooshed 747 is very bad for business. That guy who landed on water? Old as hell. His salary (and by extension, the salary his peers get) was well worth it.

The guys making 19k, are kids in their 20's or so, with (I think?) sometimes as bad around six months experience of actual flying a plane. They often rent apartments or lofts together at their stops to have a place to sleep. Capitalism being what it is, they're overworked and have to break regulations (such as weight limits) if it's profitable. Frontline had a thing on it? Frontline had a thing on it!

Anyway, it's all because ~12 dead people isn't that big a deal as dozens and a little smashed up plane isn't as kewl for the news reel as a big one. The people working under these conditions might hope to one day level up to the more prestigious companies, but the reality of the situation is that its like trying to become a big hollywood star - thousands and thousands want to be one, maybe a few dozen get to be one.

[Skykid]

The guys making 19k, are kids in their 20's or so, with (I think?) sometimes have as bad around six months experience of actual flying a plane. They often rent apartments or lofts together at their stops to have a place to sleep. Capitalism being what it is, they're overworked and have to break regulations (such as weight limits) if it's profitable. Frontline had a thing on it? Frontline had a thing on it!

Well, like I said, I'm surprised anyone flying a plane, regardless of age or experience, gets paid that kind of wage. Thanks for the info there BryanM.

[sven666]

You're right, but depending on your environment, you may have different ideas about what is an acceptable wage. Definitely watch the film if you get the chance Sven, it's enlightening.

i will if i get the chance, im not saying im an expert on teh subject or anything but ive met quite a few pilots and they were all rich and definetly made a hell of a lot more than $19K.
Ive also been to america (woooo!!) and 19k doesnt stretch too far over there which just makes it seem even more unlikeley.

and yeah with professions like this you always have to endure a few "dog years" but even so the wage seems extremely low.

[oli_lar]

Seems strange, not true in the UK at least - My parents neighbor was a pilot and he seemed to be about the average income. Then there was another pilot living a couple of minutes down the road that earnt mega bucks (though he was very rarely in the UK so that may explain it, he worked at BA doing long haul flights). Oh and definition of mega bucks, this is his house:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/489587

And the fact I met Ginger McCain at a New Year party there when I was quite young (he trained Red Rum). Oh and their daughter is nice

Edit: people being trained on $19k sounds about right. Moore twisting figures, like everyone else

[Skykid]

Has Moore got a reputation for twisting figures then? I always thought he appeared to be quite genuine in his messages. Although I can't say all the info in his documentaries are 'fact', the systems of government and capitalism that he covers seem to be accurate at least.

[jonny5]

i have to say 19k sounds a bit farfetched.....that doesnt even add up to minimum wage

[Ex-Cyber]

From what I've seen, Moore rarely lies outright, but he frequently spins things as being relevant or shocking when they really aren't in the proper context.

[Skykid]

From what I've seen, Moore rarely lies outright, but he frequently spins things as being relevant or shocking when they really aren't in the proper context.

If that serves to bolster the impact of a truthful message, I can live with it. I'd only be concerned if the credibility of his entire point was sullied by lies and incorrectness.
The spin is just part and parcel of delivering any message in which you want to create a sympathetic response.

Still, I'd rather cold facts and no spin, but that's never going to happen.

When I saw him interviewed live on CNN during the release of Sicko, I really thought (and continue to think) he's genuine in his crusades and promotes important messages. Prior to that (and even after the oscar speech) I wasn't quite sure.

[Acid King]

Still, I'd rather cold facts and no spin, but that's never going to happen.

If you prefer facts, not spin, then don't watch movies made by polemic documentarians.

[brentsg]

Moore is all about propaganda.

My old bosses husband was a commercial pilot for a larger airline, but he flew the very small planes not the large stuff. He made $30,000 or so and this was back in 1996. I remember thinking that was low, and that she was a moron for sharing the information.

She had no sense of humor and I have a dry sense of humor so we didn't get along well. She was getting married, and when I found out he was a pilot I said something along the lines of "ahh I see you landed yourself a pilot, nice" and she promptly got offended and told me how much he made to prove her point.

[Skykid]

Still, I'd rather cold facts and no spin, but that's never going to happen.

If you prefer facts, not spin, then don't watch movies made by polemic documentarians.

I can see the point there, but I don't see the problem with polemic documentarians as long as the point of view they're promoting is worthwhile and educational.
By the nature alone it's bound to be propagandist because it aims to promote a single opinion, but as long as it's good propaganda I don't see the problem.

Sicko, Bowling for Colombine and Capitalism: ALS are polemic films, but surely they have value in educating people about less obvious realities. The fact that they're (mostly) US focussed is neither here nor there - it's a country in which the population has arguably lived with the most obstructive, proliferating propaganda in the western hemisphere for years, at least now they get to see a different side of the coin.

[Acid King]

I can see the point there, but I don't see the problem with polemic documentarians as long as the point of view they're promoting is worthwhile and educational.
By the nature alone it's bound to be propagandist because it aims to promote a single opinion, but as long as it's good propaganda I don't see the problem.

Sicko, Bowling for Colombine and Capitalism: ALS are polemic films, but surely they have value in educating people about less obvious realities. The fact that they're (mostly) US focussed is neither here nor there - it's a country in which the population has arguably lived with the most obstructive, proliferating propaganda in the western hemisphere for years, at least now they get to see a different side of the coin.

His films are inherently uneducational because they're purposefully deceptive. He appeals to people's emotions, not their reason and he selectively presents evidence to support the conclusion he has already drawn and the one he wants the viewer to draw. They have entertainment value because they're well made movies, but just because they raise people's awareness of particular issues doesn't mean they have educational value, especially when it could lead people to make decisions based on partial or inaccurate information. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that bullshit.

[Skykid]

but just because they raise people's awareness of particular issues doesn't mean they have educational value

Really?

[Specineff]

I'd take Michael Moore more seriously if he wasn't a fatass more fit for a King of Queens-style sitcom.

[brentsg]

but just because they raise people's awareness of particular issues doesn't mean they have educational value

Really?

I agree with this perspective too. The guy makes propaganda films that are designed to push an agenda. As such you have to watch them with the proper perspective and understand what you're getting.

Of course then our brilliant school systems will plop the kids down in front of stuff like this and call it education. Of course they lack the proper context and come home to yell at mom and dad. A similar thing happened with the Al Gore flick on climate change. I had several friends who's kids came home yelling, pissed off as hell that "their parents ruined the world".

It's just an easy mechanism to program kids and create activists.

[Skykid]

but just because they raise people's awareness of particular issues doesn't mean they have educational value

Really?

I agree with this perspective too. The guy makes propaganda films that are designed to push an agenda. As such you have to watch them with the proper perspective and understand what you're getting.

Of course then our brilliant school systems will plop the kids down in front of stuff like this and call it education. Of course they lack the proper context and come home to yell at mom and dad. A similar thing happened with the Al Gore flick on climate change. I had several friends who's kids came home yelling, pissed off as hell that "their parents ruined the world".

It's just an easy mechanism to program kids and create activists.

I like activism as long as it has a legitimate purpose.

I'm not sure about the anti-moore arguments here. It makes sense that he puts spin on the stories to create sympathy but I'm more interested in summing up the parts of the argument:
You have a reality based documentary that deals with real people who are telling personal stories of suffering, pain and even death at the hands of gun crime, corporations and capitalism. Do these people really exist, and do the deaths and ailments they've suffered exist? If the answer is yes, then it's at least a story worth telling to those that want to hear. Yes, it's polemic filmmaking and spun in such a way that it creates sympathy for one argument, and yes, it's also done with a political agenda (see Moore hates Bush), but does that mean you should write it off factually?

The short version is, I suppose, that regardless of the way the story is told, it's still worth telling. If someone wishes to investigate it in the context of counter arguments that's fine - but it remains that people die because Health Insurance companies find ways to deny them treatment, people get shot because desperate people have easy access to weaponry, and the Banks of America walked into the treasury and took x-billion dollars of taxpayers money for a bailout and then paid everyone million dollar bonuses for Christmas.

If you didn't know any of that or the degrees of severity, then to some effect you are more educated on the subject than you were prior to watching the documentary, right?

?