Okay, I’ve been trying to get his blog out for over a month, and have finally gotten to it. But in Publishers Weekly of July 23, was an article titled "Measuring the Salary Divide," on pages 24 - 27, and I was kinda dismayed at the so-called "analysis" presented in the article. Though it presents actual numbers, I find the analysis extremely misleading. Though I know that typically (and this is changing, I'm told) women make less than men, Jim Milliot states that the huge discrepancy in the publishing industry is mainly because there "...are many more women on the editorial side of the business, while men dominate the management side." Yet he also states a little later that "...no matter how you slice it, editorial spots tend to be the lowest-paying in publishing." The two don't necessarily resolve in my mind! If editorial positions have always been the lowest paid, then the huge discrepancy in salaries is NOT because WOMEN are editors, it's because of POSITION. One of my editors friends in NYC says that when he started back between the 2nd and 3rd Punic Wars there were mostly women in the editorial areas with which he was familiar (except that the SF editor was a man), but he also said that he thinks that was so because they could be hired at a cheaper rate. He also said that to his recollection most general editors were men and that this began to change in the 1970s. So, I guess the reason for women in those positions is another subject entirely, which he doesn't touch upon.
As I see it any manager could come into a publishing upper management position, because running a company is running a company (it's all about bottom line, and if the numbers ain't good, you get rid of the chaff and bring in better talent). From my experience on this planet, management ALWAYS gets the better pay and benies--those in the trenches NEVER do, whether you're an editor, writer, satellite operator, or a marine. And of course marketing and sales are included in the higher rates, because they are directly responsible for SELLING, therefore bringing in INCOME. Writers are, literally, unfortunately, a dime a dozen. Very few positions and people give much respect to those in the trenches, it's all about marketing. Even bad books can be so well marketed to rake in money. I don't believe I have to give examples.
What I'd also like to see explored is how those salary scales (and bonuses--come on, of course execs get bigger bonuses and paychecks, etc., they're the ones who create and levy them!) and positions compare to similarly racked-and-stacked salaries and positions of similar stature. That would be more meaningful. This survey seems superficial, ill-conceived, and poorly analyzed.
Or maybe created to push an agenda?
I also get tired of any "battle of the sexes;" this ain't about gender bias, again, IMHO, it's about station. As I see it, back when I was a kid, most editors were guys, and now most editors are gals. Who knows, perhaps in the future most managers will also be gals, at the rate of integration I'm observing.
Now, maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, since this is based on my somewhat removed and limited position from the killing fields of NYC, etc., but I was extremely disappointed in the article’s depth and analysis.
