Making this thread for fellow junior member P-Tux7, here's his post:
I've noticed that many shows, from Simpsons to SpongeBob to She-Ra, not only now but for a few decades now, usually have the storyboards done in their country of origin, but usually send the actual animation work (the "in-betweens" of the various poses on the storyboards) to a studio in another country. This is apparently done to save on costs, because animators in countries like the U.S.A. are more apparently expensive than animators in countries like South Korea/China. My question is:
Isn't this unethical?
Here are a few observations of mine that, if they are indeed accurate observations, seem to point to outsourcing animation being unethical
1. It creates the idea that you deserve less money just because you live in a certain country.
2. Immigration - even though animators in the countries that get outsourced to can indeed survive on less money than countries like the U.S., this only applies if they STAY in the cheaper country. If that South Korean animator moves to the U.S., their dollars will not go as far as they would in South Korea. However, they did the same amount of work as someone who lives in the U.S. Why should they have less money?
And if the solution is "don't move to a more expensive country", why should that be disincentivized? This basically tells the animator to "keep working on our animated shows for cheap, but stay out of our country." If they're good enough to be hireable, why should they not have the resources to live in the country that is doing the hiring?
3. Even though it may be a "good gig" or whatever for animators in low cost of living countries, it's still cheap on the part of the companies and is insulting to animators who live in higher-cost countries. If someone in the U.S. NEEDS a higher salary than someone in South Korea to survive (without moving to South Korea themselves), it's not fair that they'll get passed over for someone who can afford to take the pay cut.
In short, I'm not trying to say "Oh my God! Companies are being cheap!" because there's nothing wrong with looking for the best price. However, it being okay to look for a bargain comes with a responsibility: that you aren't messing up the market. It's why we don't buy stolen goods just because they're cheap, because doing so incentivizes taking away profit from the company and makes people think that the "stolen" price, which the theives didn't have to pay for creating the goods, is the "true" price.
In the same way, I feel that outsourcing harms animators who want to immigrate to the U.S./Canada/Britain, and harms U.S./Canada/Britain animators who don't want to move. Outsourcing perpetrates the idea that you should get treated differently based on the circumstances of your birth.
I've noticed that many shows, from Simpsons to SpongeBob to She-Ra, not only now but for a few decades now, usually have the storyboards done in their country of origin, but usually send the actual animation work (the "in-betweens" of the various poses on the storyboards) to a studio in another country. This is apparently done to save on costs, because animators in countries like the U.S.A. are more apparently expensive than animators in countries like South Korea/China. My question is:
Isn't this unethical?
Here are a few observations of mine that, if they are indeed accurate observations, seem to point to outsourcing animation being unethical
1. It creates the idea that you deserve less money just because you live in a certain country.
2. Immigration - even though animators in the countries that get outsourced to can indeed survive on less money than countries like the U.S., this only applies if they STAY in the cheaper country. If that South Korean animator moves to the U.S., their dollars will not go as far as they would in South Korea. However, they did the same amount of work as someone who lives in the U.S. Why should they have less money?
And if the solution is "don't move to a more expensive country", why should that be disincentivized? This basically tells the animator to "keep working on our animated shows for cheap, but stay out of our country." If they're good enough to be hireable, why should they not have the resources to live in the country that is doing the hiring?
3. Even though it may be a "good gig" or whatever for animators in low cost of living countries, it's still cheap on the part of the companies and is insulting to animators who live in higher-cost countries. If someone in the U.S. NEEDS a higher salary than someone in South Korea to survive (without moving to South Korea themselves), it's not fair that they'll get passed over for someone who can afford to take the pay cut.
In short, I'm not trying to say "Oh my God! Companies are being cheap!" because there's nothing wrong with looking for the best price. However, it being okay to look for a bargain comes with a responsibility: that you aren't messing up the market. It's why we don't buy stolen goods just because they're cheap, because doing so incentivizes taking away profit from the company and makes people think that the "stolen" price, which the theives didn't have to pay for creating the goods, is the "true" price.
In the same way, I feel that outsourcing harms animators who want to immigrate to the U.S./Canada/Britain, and harms U.S./Canada/Britain animators who don't want to move. Outsourcing perpetrates the idea that you should get treated differently based on the circumstances of your birth.
