Average US Salary 53,000 is this Right?

27.1k sounds legit...
Min wage is $8.25 federal and at 40 hours a week for a full year, they are still in poverty.
I'm moving to AU!

I don't know where they got that figure from, but it's bogus in most ways. Interestingly, I get a "page not found" error when I click their "methodology" link.

"This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies. "

That blurb suggests they're talking about government and major business staff photographers (those that have HR departments). That would inflate the number a great deal more than if they included self-employed and freelance photographers.

PPA's statistics indicate that the modal average income for portrait/wedding photographer is about $20,000 annually (net: after business expenses, before personal expenses). Commercial photographers are netting somewhat more, but those who are netting more tend to be those who are also living in high-cost areas. In other words, not many families are living on the photographer's salary alone. Most often, it's the spouse who is working the job that provides family benefits like health care.

The major issue of "bogusity" in these statistics is that what people reading them really want to know is the modal average--what amount is the greatest number of people making--or in other words, what is the average photographer making--not the median average of all photographer's incomes.

Sounds about right.

Davidec502 - Heck, no - I wasn't making political comment - hardly the type of Forum for that - just "income and social" sort of comment.

In our bunch of friends here we do have a retired American couple (and now their daughter, finished Uni, is moving here) - who spent their first 2 or 3 years here just coming to terms with how things work. While the 2 countries mostly speak English and get on very well as countries - internally they're socially quite different.

The concept of "losing health cover" because you lose or leave a job - doesn't occur to average workers here - but seems to be quite real in the US.

From the other angle - Employers here would be in horror-fits if anyone suggested that they pay for "Health Insurance" for Employees... Also - they - and Employees - don't pay "Unemployment Insurance". That means wages can be higher, with still good profit levels for the employers.

Here, Unemployment Benefits are available to all persons who are unemployed AND (must prove they are) looking for work. So long as they show they are looking for employment, the Unemployment Benefits don't ever "run-out". (People can be "breached" - payment ceased - if they don't fulfill requirements.)

Actually - there's no incentive to "stay on UB" - because that's well under half of the minimum wage ($570.00 a week.) It's intended to be "just enough" for food, rent, and jobseeking transport - not to live on for an extended period. As an indicator that people get off UB as quickly as they can, is the December official unemployment figure of 5.2%. (The Govt "predicts" that it will be under 5% before mid 2011.)

I've been told (by the couple mentioned) that people there have actually gone bankrupt, lost their car, even their home, because of health expenses, though that case might have had unusual circumstances.

But for the average mid or working class family, particularly those with several kids, not having to worry about paying a lot (I've heard that US families can pay $12,000.00 a year for "full" cover) - for insurance, has to be a living-standard advantage. Families here also get Family Benefits, and payments for each child, to 16 - or if still in education, and living at home, quite usual nowadays, higher ages.

I do hope things go well with your job and the health coverage, so on.

Dave.

I think it really depends on what state you live in. The same salary might get you a big house in Indiana for example, but a tiny shack in California...

exwintech, as interesting as it is to many people it's probably best not to go into it much more than that. Threads can turn sour at the drop of a hat, and moderators are never far away.

As a general rule photographers don't make a lot of money, and many have other jobs or partners who work. I'm reasonably well established, and I couldn't even near live on photography at my current level of work.

exwintech wrote in post #11607995
Davidec502 - Heck, no - I wasn't making political comment - hardly the type of Forum for that - just "income and social" sort of comment.

In our bunch of friends here we do have a retired American couple (and now their daughter, finished Uni, is moving here) - who spent their first 2 or 3 years here just coming to terms with how things work. While the 2 countries mostly speak English and get on very well as countries - internally they're socially quite different.

The concept of "losing health cover" because you lose or leave a job - doesn't occur to average workers here - but seems to be quite real in the US.

From the other angle - Employers here would be in horror-fits if anyone suggested that they pay for "Health Insurance" for Employees... Also - they - and Employees - don't pay "Unemployment Insurance". That means wages can be higher, with still good profit levels for the employers.

Here, Unemployment Benefits are available to all persons who are unemployed AND (must prove they are) looking for work. So long as they show they are looking for employment, the Unemployment Benefits don't ever "run-out". (People can be "breached" - payment ceased - if they don't fulfill requirements.)

Actually - there's no incentive to "stay on UB" - because that's well under half of the minimum wage ($570.00 a week.) It's intended to be "just enough" for food, rent, and jobseeking transport - not to live on for an extended period. As an indicator that people get off UB as quickly as they can, is the December official unemployment figure of 5.2%. (The Govt "predicts" that it will be under 5% before mid 2011.)

I've been told (by the couple mentioned) that people there have actually gone bankrupt, lost their car, even their home, because of health expenses, though that case might have had unusual circumstances.

But for the average mid or working class family, particularly those with several kids, not having to worry about paying a lot (I've heard that US families can pay $12,000.00 a year for "full" cover) - for insurance, has to be a living-standard advantage. Families here also get Family Benefits, and payments for each child, to 16 - or if still in education, and living at home, quite usual nowadays, higher ages.

I do hope things go well with your job and the health coverage, so on.

Dave.

Thanks for elighting me on how things are done 'down-under'.

Actually, it was I who was skirting talking politics, and not you. I appreciate your insight, and look forward to discussing photography more in the future.

My thoughts on this post were as to how well photgraphers do in the US. Right now I am fully employed, outside of photography, but was thinking about doing it part time, or perhaps full time, if there were opportunities. After reading the comments of others in the buisness, and doing some reasearch, it appears there may be a step back if I went that route. Someone made a good point that photographers are doing it because they love the profession, and not neccessarily because of the money. This is true for a lot of different industries, but I've seen how technical photography can be, and am surprised people are not charging more for thier services. Well, with that said, I know we are in a down-turn, and un-employment is high, so therefore it isn't like people can charge a whole lot right now.

If anyone has anything else to contribute, I'm all 'eyes'.

jptsr1 wrote in post #11604425
Wow! It would be hard to live on 71K much less 53k. Something to be said for loving what you do for a living but I have 2 kids.

CoL is notoriously high where you are.

Tim - Thanks for the comment. Yes, agree - and it's why I made it clear that it was social comment. I'm a mod in a couple of forums, and we also have some "steer clear of" lines of discussion.... I appreciate your being so polite.

Dave.

davidc502 wrote in post #11604357
Hello Photo Pro's,

Do you think the average photographer salary of 53k is correct? The below article states a low of 34k and a high of 71k?

http://www1.salary.com​/Photographer-salary.html

Inquiring minds want to know because I'm thinking it might be a little low.

I don't doubt the data/figures in the article. Apparently those figures are for photographers employed by various companies, as opposed to those in business for themselves. I admit I probably would have guessed the number to be a bit lower than 53K, so I'm a little surprised.

As for self-employed photographers, I can at least share my own figures: As a part-time self-employed pro, I generated about $70K in photography-related gross in 2010, with about 30% of that being expenses/overhead. Definitely not enough for me to make a jump to photography on a full-time basis. (Granted, if I was doing it full-time, I would generate more income.) I think with some more effort, I could actually exceed the salary from my full-time job, and that will remain my goal.

I believe so, too, and I'd like a look at those companies. I suspect that the companies still having a "photographer" title on staff (as opposed to people with other titles who also take pictures) are larger companies in larger metro areas--both factors that would inflate "average" salaries.

I wonder if they calculate an index for the cost of living depending on where you live and how it relates to other areas in the country.
As in, if I make 75k a year in California that would be equal to 40k in New Mexico. (I have no idea what those numbers really are.)
I would assume they would have to in order to come up with a reasonable number.

zagiace wrote in post #11625980
I wonder if they calculate an index for the cost of living depending on where you live and how it relates to other areas in the country.
As in, if I make 75k a year in California that would be equal to 40k in New Mexico. (I have no idea what those numbers really are.)
I would assume they would have to in order to come up with a reasonable number.

I don't think they indexed COL at all.

RDKirk wrote in post #11626358
I don't think they indexed COL at all.

well if they did not, sorta kills the usefulness to start. 50k a year in some areas is a lot, in others its below average.

zagiace wrote in post #11626738
well if they did not, sorta kills the usefulness to start. 50k a year in some areas is a lot, in others its below average.

Yeah. Those survey/poll things are seldom actually useful.