Brad De Long wrote:
> *Canada* is not a low-wage country.
Doug already pointed out that film industry people are paid less in Canada. I've heard this from people who moved to Vancouver -- but it suited them alright because cost of living is somewhat less and they were ready to get out of LA. But there are other lowered costs -- studio space, equipment rental, etc. that also accounts for producers lowered overall cost of production.
I have a friend who won an Oscar for visual effects years back and his gigs these days are flying to Austrailia to work for weeks at a time, hardly any work here anymore. If they can factor in his board and travel and salary and still come out ahead, they are cutting costs in places other than *labor*.
>
>
> The Hollywood unions' complaint about NAFTA is not that it is a
> free-trade agreement, but that NAFTA contains a carve-out for
> Canada's national cultural subsidy policy.
>
> They want NAFTA to be *more complete*--to eliminate more in the way
> of national policy differences (in this case, Canadian cultural
> subsidies). Most critics of NAFTA want it too be *less complete*--to
> leave for space for national policies that subsidize different forms
> of activity that are valued for reasons beyond the marketable output
> they produce.
>
> The Hollywood unions are criticizing NAFTA, yes. But they are not
> your allies...
>
I was not aware of this, and I would agree with you. The Canadian film board is world reknown for producing exceptional programming. But are the unions specifically supporting this revision of NAFTA or is it the Motion Picture Industry Producers doing the whining?
marta