But at the less ethereal cyberspace watering holes frequented by less fortunate translators and interpreters, namely the "rabble" who have been condemned to live in the brutally real world of translation, there is lots of talk and chatter about declining income stemming from globalization, or the promised efficiencies of computer-assisted translation being translated not into more earning power, but markedly less earning power, or the domination of the translation service industry (a/k/a the translation agency industry) by businesspeople who are geniuses in marketing but would have difficulty understanding the meaning of "bonjour" or "guten abend," say nothing about comprehending the process of translation; and at those same cyberspace watering holes there is also constant talk and chatter about other real world concerns with which the august leaders of our professional societies and associations need not bother their little heads. After all, in the land of milk and honey, such detritus as economics, business, income and expenses are of zero importance. Truly, in the world of professional milk and honey, professionals do not soil their hands with pecuniary matters.

A visit to one of the aforementioned watering holes will provide an excellent insight into the brutal economics and demographics that mark the real world of translation circa 2008. All one has to do is to peek at the translation job or project offerings made on those websites. If the offering prices were of the 1990's vintage, we would be damn fortunate! On the contrary, the price offerings are in most cases straight out of the 1970's and 1960's. Translation editors are offered compensation that is out of the 1950's!!

The moaning and groaning by translators—especially veteran practitioners—over the state of translation economics is growing louder by the week, particularly by those based in western Europe and North America. Those based in the United States appear to be moaning and groaning the loudest, and for very good reason. The statistics developed by none other than the American Translators Association (that's right, you read that correctly: the American Translators Association) bear solid witness to the fact that average freelance translator earnings in 2007 U.S.A. are about on the plane of a mid-level government clerk or lower middle-management corporate employee.

Before we take a look at the only body of compensation-related statistics that we have for the U.S. translation employment market, a few preliminary comments are in order:

The compensation surveys undertaken in the past 6 or so years by the ATA are in the opinion of this correspondent, one of the organization's more worthwhile achievements. These surveys are arguably one of the association's few incursions into the business of translation, for the idea that translation (and its sister endeavor, interpreting) is a business is virtually anathema to ATA officials and leaders. After all, when one is a professional laboring in a true profession, the mere mention of the word business is like holding up a crucifix to Dracula's eyes, that is, the Hollywood version of the real-life Romanian nobleman.

But as one now-retired ATA official told me a while back, "The ATA Board delights in issuing reports like the Compensation Survey, but none of the members bother to read them, and worse, take the time to understand what they really mean."

Having so prefaced, let's take a gander at some of these translator income statistics developed in ATA's Compensation Survey for 2007. In the first place, it must be borne in mind by the reader that this survey was developed by using only ATA members as respondents. (More accurately, 99.3% of the respondents were ATA members; 0.7% were non-ATA members.) Furthermore, it is not clear whether the survey questionnaire was sent to or obtained by members of ATA chapters or affiliated organizations who are not members of ATA. And of course, we do not have figures for translators who are neither members of ATA nor of ATA chapters or affiliated organizations. Nonetheless, a fair assumption can be made that the figures shown in ATA's 2007 Compensation Survey are a reasonable reflection of the entire American translation and interpreting industry.

Another important caveat to keep in mind is that the survey combines income earned from both translation and interpreting. This is clearly one of the major flaws of this survey in that it may be providing us with erroneous or misleading data. We know (1) that many translators are not interpreters, and many interpreters are not translators; (2) that in the past seven or so years translation has experienced severe downward price pressures, much of it stemming from globalization and the increased use of computer-assisted translation ("CAT") tools, while fees for interpreting services have either held steady or slightly increased.

The biggest segment of the American translation and interpreting industry is composed of the full-time independent freelance practitioner (52%). The next largest is the part-time independent freelance segment with 28%. Therefore, the survey only confirms what many of us have known for years: that the freelance (or independent) translator (and/or interpreter) forms the backbone of the industry. And given that, this author will focus almost exclusively upon that category.

There was a time not too long ago when an experienced freelance translator in the U.S. could be and in many cases was the prime breadwinner of the family. I personally knew many such translators. If the average income figure arrived at in the ATA's 2007 Compensation Survey for an independent freelance translator is anywhere close to reality, and I for one believe it is, then the day of the prime breadwinner freelance translator in America has gone with the wind. The 2007 compensation survey reports that the average gross earnings (from translation and/or interpreting services) of a full-time freelance translator in 2006 was $60,423. This is the average for translators having anywhere between 1 and 21 years (or more) of experience. The average gross earnings (from translation and/or interpreting services) of a full-time freelance translator in 2006 with 21 years or more of experience was $69,883.

Now, it must be pointed out that the figure of $60,423 is the average gross earnings of five (5) years-of-experience categories established by the survey-takers, with the lowest (1-to-5 years' experience) being $41,947 and the highest (21+) being $69,883. And these two latter figures are themselves averages, which means that with respect to the category of more-than-21-years experience, there were those who earned above $69,883, and likewise those who earned below $69,883.

This latter figure tells us a story, a very important story. In 21^st century America, a gross annual income of $70,000 is not prime breadwinner money. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the earnings reported by the ATA Compensation Survey for independent (freelance) translators are not salaries or wages, but business income, from which business expenses must be deducted. And from the resulting difference, one must further deduct Federal income tax (and State income tax, whenever applicable), plus self-employment tax (i.e., social security/Medicare contributions). 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).

In other words, very clear other words, an annual income of $70,000 is at best the income of a co-breadwinner. More so in the case of someone earning $60,000, which as pointed out constitutes the average earnings for all freelance translator categories. But in today's realm of economic realities, those figures (of $60,000 and $70,000 gross) are probably nothing more than a household supplementary income. Notwithstanding the bellowing by translators that theirs is a profession, the above figures and all of the other figures shown in the 2007 compensation survey don't look exactly like professional earnings.

Now then, let us return to the average earnings of $60,423 for a full-time freelance translator, and place that next to another statistic developed in the 2007 compensation survey, namely the percentage of female translators: 68.6%.

This juxtaposing of average annual earnings of ca. $60,000 in an industry where ca. 70% are women should also tell us a story.

Despite the significant advances made by women in the job market and in the various professions in the past 25 or so years, and despite the average overall increase in employment earnings of women in that same period, women still lag behind men in income and still lag behind them in the category of prime breadwinner.

Given these figures, one must ask whether the translation industry has become the domain of the educated homemaker-mother, whose language skills are able to provide either a co-income or supplementary income to the household. Indeed, these income figures will make a few of us recall a controversial piece written about a decade ago: "Translation: An ideal occupation for women."

"We are a little people, and like little people
we think like little people"
(Prince Faisal of Arabia, as portrayed by Alec Guinness in
"Lawrence of Arabia")

The per-word unit has for at least one hundred years been the basis for determining a translator's fee, particularly in the U.S. Although there have been suggestions and even isolated attempts to change this basis, it has remained the dominant form in translation services invoicing.

The natural efficiencies of the computer allowed for the corresponding increases in translator productivity, and that increased productivity kept the per-word unit firmly in its position as the dominant basis for determining translation fees. Since the time that the computer became the principal production tool, no one has questioned the practice of charging for repetitive words or phrases or entire passages that were very similar but not precisely identical. The concept and the predominant thinking was that a translator's time had to be compensated even though the translator was not actually translating words, but merely blocking, copying, pasting and comparing and/or verifying.

But the advent of the computer-assisted translation ("CAT") tool and its widespread implementation has dramatically changed the economic playing field, and translators, particularly those who are relatively new to the industry, have readily accepted the notion that they should be paid solely and exclusively for words translated only once, and that their time and knowledge applied to moving words and re-positioning phrases or components of phrases, i.e., data movement, to provide complete and accurate communication has absolutely no remunerative value. Like livestock marching in willing resignation and without protest to the slaughtering pens, the translators of the 21^st century are seemingly doing likewise.

To this correspondent, it is not a question of what brought about this change in thinking that translators should be compensated only for so-called "new words" or that bastard sibling called "fuzzy matches," but rather who has promoted this concept and who is benefiting most by its application.

To many in the freelance community, the "villains" are clearly the translation agencies, now predominantly in the hands of language-blind, profit-focused and marketing-focused businesspeople. The few translation agency owners who are willing to speak about this issue, say that it is the translation clients who are forcing this change upon the translation agencies in an effort to lower translation costs, and therefore the agencies have no choice but to pressure freelance translators into accepting compensation solely for "new words" translated...at prices that would have looked attractive in 1978!

Added to the mix are the attitudes of translator organizations, which have become more and more fascinated by machines and attendant technology than with the resulting economic impact. Worse, some of them have jumped into bed with the manufacturers of CAT and other translation-assisted tools, blindly but gleefully accepting handsome advertising revenues. In addition, translation organizations have encouraged their members to use this technology on the sole grounds that it provides for increased efficiency and productivity, although no studies have been sponsored or undertaken to determine what if any efficiencies are actually achieved, save for the efficiency of increasing profits at one end and lowering compensation at the other. Indeed, if CAT and other so-called translation-assisted tools are providing such increased productivity, then why is it that so many translators are complaining about longer hours of work and less compensation? Something don't smell right here.

The United States is now moving into a major economic recession, but a recession that is coupled with rising inflation. Every single one of us is now feeling the effects of this inflation, as prices for basic goods and services are increasing dramatically across the board. Yet, translation prices have dropped and translator income has remained relatively stagnant. And if we place any credence in the complaint that translators worked longer hours to earn in 2007 what they earned in 2006 or 2005 or 2004, then in effect what we have is a reduction in income.

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.

by Bernie Bierman

This article was originally published in The Gotham Translator, a publication of the New York Circle of Translators.