Here's the rest of the post, if you aren't on Facebook:
Actually found the timing of reading wonderful, as I had recently played around with some numbers I think are more common than not, for non-equity actor compensation, and flipping the switch from thinking about how much I was receiving to how much I was giving.
For example, say two weeks of rehearsal, with rehearsing for 30 hours each week, paid $120. Not only did I calculate that the effective hourly rate was $2, using minimum wage, I went from thinking I would be making $120 to realize that I was actually GIVING $315, because that amount of time at minimum wage is worth at least $435.
The irony is that often times the actors who are able to afford that kind of pay cut work another job that subsidize the creative one, which is a form of privilege, in a weird way. And, I guess this may be another way of saying that minimum wage in the arts is a crucial part of the diversity, equity, and inclusion conversation as anything else.
But this is what happens when we as a society (and I put this on arts administrators) focus more on and put more value in the arts than in artists. Could you imagine an arts advocacy organization in DC that committed to affordable housing and minimum wage issues? But that would be more artist advocacy than arts advocacy.
I think it's time to flip the script.
What do you think? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments.