July 3, 2008
How not to analyze the translation industry
Bernie Bierman has an article in the latest issue of the Translation Journal.
In it he claims, among other things, that translation is becoming a profession for "housewives" (yes, he actually writes this), and that an annual income of $70,000 is practically poverty level in the United States.
Let's look at these claims, starting with the most ridiculous. First, Bernie points out that according to the ATA's 2007 Compensation Survey for an independent freelance translator,
…the average gross earnings … of a full-time freelance translator in 2006 was $60,423. … The average gross earnings … of a full-time freelance translator in 2006 with 21 years or more of experience was $69,883.
OK, fine. But then Bernie's critical thinking skills seem to go a bit south. He goes on to state that after taxes, an income of around $60,000 is really around $45-48K, and that since "a person earning $45,000 a year with 4 dependents is below the poverty line," translators earning $60,000 a year are practically impoverished! Certainly not primary "breadwinner" levels (yes, he really does write "breadwinner"):
Thus, an independent (freelance) translator with just two dependents earning $60,423, would be left with approximately $45,000 - $48,000 after deducting business expenses and mandated income taxes and social contributions. And it is safe to say that a person with just 2 dependents and an annual income in the range of $45,000-$48,000 would probably fall into that mass of people who are without basic health-care insurance. It is also safe to say that someone with 2 dependents earning between $45,000 and $48,000 is fairly close to being a candidate for food stamps (according to Federal labor statistics, a person earning $45,000 a year with 4 dependents is below the poverty line).
Just in case you didn't notice the gaping hole in Bernie's argument, he is comparing after-tax income with with pre-tax income. Disingenuous or severely lacking in critical thinking? Neither interpretation does a lot of good for Bernie's thesis that translators can hardly earn a living at translation any more.
Bernie rightly points out that globalization and automation are having a huge impact on the translation industry. In fact they're transforming all of society, and not just translation, and not just in the United States. Meanwhile, Bernie also notes that the US is heading into a recession. The fact that translators are holding their ground amidst pressure from globalization, automation, and recession ought to be encouraging; I bet the Detroit auto workers wish they could have held their ground after the automakers realized that they could make cars a lot more cheaply in Mexico.
Bernie concludes his article with this gem:
If there is any veracity in the translation industry's current economic indicators, then perhaps the time has come for all to ask themselves whether translation is an endeavor in which a person can earn a supplemental income at best, and whether it is an industry that constitutes a welcoming harbor and nurturing environment solely for "housewives" (desperate or proverbial), and one in which most of the practitioners are quite willing to march to their own slaughtering pens.
Despite Bernie's gloom and doom predictions, I and most of the translators I know still make a comfortable living in the translation field. In 2007 I worked fewer hours to earn the same money as I did in 2005 and 2006.
As to whether $70,000 is a paltry income, maybe it is if you're living in Manhattan. But the beauty of being a freelance translator is that you can work for Manhattan clients without living in Manhattan! Most of my clients are in Tokyo, yet I live in Okinawa, in a house I certainly couldn't have afforded in Tokyo, overlooking the ocean on a subtropical island. If you can't adjust your income upward, adjust your location to where your income is adequate. I'm sure there are many places in the US where $70,000 would be a fine income for a "breadwinner." (Why does that term give me images of Ward Cleaver coming home from a hard day at the office?)
To sum up, this article looks suspiciously like someone taking a conclusion and trying mightily to shoehorn the facts to fit it. Unfortunately for Bernie's thesis but fortunately for us translators, I don't think we'll have to retrain as "the guy who maintains the robots" for at least the next couple of years.
I’m glad I read your response to Bierman’s article before the actual article. I don’t know who Ward Cleaver is, but I imagine it’s someone like the JR-actor coming home to Samantha in Bewitched?
I think Bierman is assuming also that translators have continued to live and work as they always have, that is, commuting into an office and working breadwinner-hours to support their derision-deserving housewives and the income-consuming dependents she has popped out.
These days, it’s not just the income alone, it’s also the locations where the income is earned and where it is spent, as well as the hours worked (and possibly the control the translator has over hours worked), all those have to be factored in I think.
@Kevin
Ward Cleaver was the father from Leave it to Beaver. I used to watch this show all the time, but I grew up in San Francisco and always wondered, “who lives like that?” Then I moved to Ohio and found out :)
You’re completely right that a lot of factors, such as location and intangibles like commute also need to be taken into account. Chicken Little predictions of the demise of the translation industry are still just a bit premature IMHO. :)