California Film Credit expansion claims to bring back jobs; effect remains uncertain
iStock California Film Credit expansion
California legislators are moving to greatly expand the state's Film and Television Tax Credit Program as a means of stopping the flow of runawaproduction and revitalizing a struggling entertainment industry. The expansion, if approved, would double the program's annual limit from $330 million to $750 million. But, even with the broad changes, analysts and industry officials warn that the effect on employment might not be as dramatic as anticipated.
As reported by the California Film Commission, the expansion would increase direct employment by 40–50%, or approximately 4,400 to 5,500 new cast and crew jobs. However, this is only a small portion of the 17,000 jobs that have been lost since 2022, according to figures presented by the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plan.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics further reports that California experienced a decline of approximately 40,000 jobs within the industry since before the pandemic, with some entertainment unions having claimed that as much as half of their members have been laid off.
Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur, chief sponsor of the expansion, recognized the limitations: 'This is not a panacea. It will not reverse the steep slide in jobs, but it will bring some of the jobs back.' He pointed out that increasing the payout might attract more high-budget films to film in California instead of abroad, although the state's incentive is still smaller per job than those from New York and Georgia.
Economic studies provide conflicting views. A recent study for the Milken Institute indicated the expansion could create an additional 14,886 jobs accounting for ripple effects on the economy. The California Legislative Analyst's Office has challenged such assertions, however, to say there is "no compelling evidence" film tax credits significantly improve the overall state economy and that incentives instead could simply displace other economic activity.
Industry supporters, such as Local 724's Alex Aguilar and Rebecca Rhine of the Directors Guild of America, recognize that any forward movement is necessary. Rhine commented, 'While more resources would lead to more jobs, we recognize the challenges of the current moment and competing priorities. Action is necessary now, and we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.'The California Film and Television Tax Credit Program is a state incentive program that provides film and television production companies with tax credits they can use to offset part of their qualified costs in order to incentivize them to film their productions in California. The overall objective of this program is to assist in the creation and retention of jobs within the entertainment sector in the employments of Californians that benefit not just the actors and directors but also the large network of crew, technicians, and local businesses dependent upon film and television production.Under the plan, eligible productions—feature films, TV series, miniseries, and pilots—can qualify to get tax credits normally between 20% and 25% of their qualified expenditures, based on the type of project and whether produced by an independent or non-independent firm.These credits cut into the tax obligation of the production companies directly, so it is more desirable for them to shoot in California than elsewhere in other states or nations that provide similar incentives.The program is specifically designed to generate the highest employment. For example, productions have to spend a minimum of 75% of their production budget or principal photography days in California in order to qualify, so that lots of money is spent locally and employment is generated for the people of California.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
What is 'submarining'? A toxic dating trend making a comeback. How to spot it before it hurts you
Imagine talking to someone, building a connection, sharing your time—and then, poof! They vanish. Weeks or months pass, and out of nowhere, they reappear in your messages like nothing happened. No apology. No explanation. Just a casual 'Hey, how have you been?' If that scenario sounds all too familiar, you may have just been submarined —and dating experts say it's on the rise. The Sinister Side of 'Submarining' Like its naval namesake, this dating trend involves someone disappearing beneath the surface and re-emerging unannounced. Unlike ghosting, which is final, submarining carries a sting of emotional manipulation . The person ghosts you and then resurfaces in your life without addressing their disappearance. No guilt. No remorse. Just vibes. The term has gained serious traction—Google searches for 'submarining in dating' have reportedly surged by 350% in the US over the past year. And while the act isn't new, experts say it reflects a troubling lack of accountability in modern dating culture . iStock Like its naval namesake, submarining dating trend involves someone disappearing beneath the surface and re-emerging unannounced. (Representational image: iStock) Why Do People Submarine? Experts Explain the Motive According to author Gigi Engle, the motivations behind submarining are rarely sincere. 'They want someone to talk to and make them feel good about themselves,' she said in a recent interview with Men's Health . 'It's pretty unlikely that it's because this person actually cares about you.' It often stems from insecurity, boredom, or a romantic fallback plan gone awry. Dating coach Jonathan Bennett suggests many submarine attempts come after other relationships fizzle out. 'Since they don't want to admit the truth, whatever that is, they resort to submarining instead—and hope you fall for it,' he explained. You Might Also Like: 'Floodlighting' is the new dating trend Gen Z can't stop talking about. But why is it a red flag experts are warning against? How to Handle It: Should You Let Them Surface Again? So what should you do if someone suddenly pops back into your life like a texting torpedo? Experts suggest proceeding with caution. 'You can respond however you see fit,' Engle noted. 'If you really want to give this person another chance, that's up to you. Just be aware that this is likely not going to end well.' Submarining, at its core, is a form of emotional breadcrumbing—dropping just enough attention to keep someone hopeful, without offering anything meaningful. And unless you're looking for déjà vu heartbreak, most experts advise swimming the other way. 'If you're feeling gutsy,' Engle added, 'you can reply to their submarine text and tell them that this is a lame thing to do. If they wanted to chat, they shouldn't have been so rude in the first place.' You Might Also Like: AI can help you improve your dating experience. Tinder is making the platform creep-proof In the murky waters of modern dating, submarining is a painful reminder that not everyone navigates relationships with honesty or respect. Recognizing the signs—and learning to value your emotional well-being—can help you steer clear of this emotionally draining trend. Because if they went underwater once, chances are, they'll do it again.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Google takes a gamble in class action jury trial over cell phone data use
HighlightsGoogle is facing an $800 million lawsuit in Santa Clara County, California, from Android smartphone users who claim the company misappropriates their cellphone data, affecting an estimated 14 million Californians. The plaintiffs allege that Google secretly transmits data over cellular networks even when devices are turned off, which they argue improperly consumes purchased data from mobile carriers without user consent. Despite Google's history of settling class actions, the company is opting for a trial, disputing the plaintiffs' claims that they have a property interest in cellular data allowances and arguing that no actual losses were incurred. Class actions rarely go to trial, which is why a case against Google is proving to be an outlier. The tech giant is defending itself before a jury in Santa Clara County, California, superior court in an $800 million lawsuit by Android smartphone users who say Google misappropriates their cellphone data. A jury of eight women and four men was seated on Tuesday in what lawyers say is expected to be a three-to-four-week trial, with opening statements kicking off on Wednesday. The stakes are high, but the class, which includes an estimated 14 million Californians whose mobile devices use Google's Android operating system, is in some ways just an appetizer. The same plaintiffs lawyers from Korein Tillery; Bartlit Beck and McManis Faulkner are litigating a parallel case in San Jose federal court covering Android users in the other 49 states, with billions of dollars in alleged damages. The plaintiffs in court papers say that even when their phones are turned off, Google causes Android devices to surreptitiously send information over cellular networks "for Google's own purposes," including targeted digital advertising. These transfers improperly eat up data that users purchase from their mobile carriers, the plaintiffs allege. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the claims "mischaracterize standard industry practices that help protect users and make phones more reliable," he told me. "We look forward to making our case in court." A unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet, Google has a well-used playbook for settling class actions. Earlier this week, for example, the company agreed to pay $500 million to resolve shareholder litigation - a move that comes on the heels of a $50 million deal in May to resolve class-wide allegations of racial bias against Black employees and a $100 million payout in March to a proposed class of advertisers who claimed they were overcharged for clicks on ads. So why is Google taking this case to trial? In court papers, Google's outside counsel from Cooley argue that Android users incurred no actual losses, and that consumers consented to Google's so-called "passive" data transfers via terms of service agreements and device settings. The lawyers also dispute the fundamental premise of the case: that cellular data allowances can be considered "property" under California law and subject to conversion, a civil cause of action that involves taking a person's property without permission. When the "rhetoric and hyperbole are set aside, Plaintiffs' theory is revealed as little more than a (misguided) product design claim - not wrongful conversion," defense counsel wrote. The Cooley team, which includes Whitty Somvichian, Michael Attanasio, Max Bernstein and Carrie Lebel, declined comment. The plaintiffs sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2019, asserting that they have a property interest in their cellular plans' data allowances, and that each quantum they pay for has a market value. They don't object to data transmissions when they're actively engaged with Google's apps and properties, like checking email or playing a game. But they say Google never told them it would avail itself of their cellular data when they weren't using their phones to send and receive a range of information on their usage. "The upshot is that these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year," plaintiffs lawyer George Zelcs of Korein Tillery said via email. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs want Google to reimburse them for the value of the cellular data the company consumed. Per person, the amount is modest - 1 to 1.5 megabytes of data each day, the plaintiffs estimate. To put that in context, Americans used just over 100 trillion megabytes of wireless data in 2023, my Reuters colleagues reported. But with a class period dating back to 2016, the totals add up quickly. In court papers, Google lawyers sound almost incredulous at the amount of the claimed nationwide damages, which they say runs in the tens of billions - more than the $7.4 billion Perdue Pharma settlement for the opioid crisis, they note. "Plaintiffs cannot show remotely commensurate harm to the class," they wrote. In denying Google's motion for summary judgment in May, Judge Charles Adams allowed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion to go forward, ruling there are triable issues of material fact for jurors to decide. While Adams said no direct state law precedent exists as to whether cell phone data is property, he pointed to a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in the parallel federal class action, Taylor v Google. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi in San Jose sided with Google and dismissed the complaint with prejudice in 2022, only to be reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate panel in an unpublished decision ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they incurred damages when Google used their cellular data. Adams in a pre-trial order set some limits on what the lawyers will be allowed to argue to the jury. Plaintiffs may not suggest Google engages in "surveillance" of Android users, he wrote, or that the data transfers are a privacy violation. As for Google, Adams said, it "must not present evidence or argument suggesting that this case is 'lawyer driven' or was 'invented' by Plaintiffs' counsel."
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Economic Times
India's next 100 million credit users won't fit the old mould. That's a growing opportunity
iStock The next 100 million credit users won't accept complexity, exclusion, or outdated systems and nor should they. They are ready, willing, and digitally equipped. India's lending landscape is undergoing a transformation. The next 100 million users entering the system will not just be salaried professionals from Tier 1 cities, in white collar jobs but predominantly individuals who are from low salary income category, blue collared workers and workforce that will be employed in miscellaneous non traditional roles across India. As someone working closely with underserved segments, I believe we need to stop applying outdated models to new users. Instead, we must design for their realities, aspirations, and constraints. Doing so could unlock the next wave of financial inclusion and sustainable credit growth. 1. Income under Rs 30,000: A demand-led opportunityNearly 70% of new-to-credit users in India today earn less than Rs 30,000 per month (TransUnion CIBIL, 2023). Traditional risk models often classify them as high-risk, but in practice, they show high appetite for small-ticket loans (Rs 2,000–Rs 15,000), frequent repeat usage, and responsible repayments when repayment cycles match their income patterns. We need to move beyond static income brackets as a proxy for risk. A factory worker with consistent cash flow but no formal payslip is typically excluded. But if lenders consider alternate data ; like mobile recharges, UPI spends, and rental payments ; a more accurate picture of their creditworthiness emerges. We've seen this approach succeed. What is needed is a broader adoption of cash-flow based underwriting using Account Aggregator infrastructure and low-documentation models. Regulators can accelerate this by enabling targeted sandbox pilots and removing friction from GST-less and digitally-native loan journeys. 2. Gig and informal workers: The new credit core India's gig economy is projected to reach 23.5 million workers by 2030 (NITI Aayog). Many among them , including delivery personnel, rideshare drivers, and on-demand freelancers , are actively seeking access to formal credit but remain excluded due to lack of documentation. Their income is volatile, but their repayment behaviour is often better than expected ,especially when credit products are aligned to their cash cycles. In our experience, weekly or even daily repayment models built into gig platforms result in stronger repayment rates than traditional EMIs. In this case Fintechs and platforms should co-create embedded credit products that flex with earnings. Regulatory support for platform-linked underwriting and repayment will help make these solutions scalable and sustainable.3. Women: A growing, high-trust segmentOnly 27% of formal credit users in India are women (CIBIL), but this number is steadily rising. Internal data and on-ground insights reveal that women ; especially in non-metro regions , tend to borrow more cautiously and repay more reliably. More importantly, their borrowing patterns are purpose-driven: for their children's education, family healthcare, or small business needs. Yet most credit products aren't designed with them in mind , from the language in the app to documentation we can design women-first credit journeys that are vernacular, simple, and focused on life outcomes. Embed financial literacy within the product experience. Collaborate with women-led NBFCs, SHGs, and digital inclusion programs to build distribution and trust. 4. Gen Z and young borrowers: Empowerment, not just credit The average new-to-credit age in India is now 27 (CIBIL). This group is mobile-first, real-time oriented, and highly value-conscious. One hidden fee or poorly explained clause is enough to lose their trust. But when credit is bundled with features like cashback, micro-savings, or usage insights, they engage deeply. They don't see credit as a loan , they see it as a tool for managing life better. We can move beyond the loan-as-a-product mindset. Build financial empowerment tools that combine credit with savings nudges, spending insights, and gamified repayment features. Gen Z rewards clarity, control, and utility , not just offers and limits. 5. Credit penetration: India lags, but can leap India's credit-to-GDP ratio is just 56%, compared to 155% in China and 216% in the US (World Bank, 2023). Less than 14% of adults have access to formal credit (RBI Financial Inclusion Index). Over 500 million Indians still remain unserved and under-served, And yet, we're better prepared than ever. With Aadhaar, UPI, Account Aggregator, and the JAM stack, we now have the infrastructure to include millions. What we need is to update the playbook to fit new users, not force them into old moulds. We need to encourage digital lenders to pilot alternate scoring models, support simplified KYC frameworks, and enable ecosystem innovation through progressive regulation. Financial institutions must build for Bharat's realities, not just urban India's credit profile. The next 100 million credit users won't accept complexity, exclusion, or outdated systems and nor should they. They are ready, willing, and digitally equipped. What they need are products built with empathy, flexibility, and purpose. We now stand at a defining moment: we can either retrofit legacy models to fit this emerging India, or we can reimagine credit to truly serve it. The tools are in place from UPI to Account Aggregator. What's needed is intent and innovation. If we build with inclusion at the core, we won't just expand access , we'll unlock growth, trust, and long-term resilience for the entire financial ecosystem. The future of credit in India is not just inclusive, it can be transformative. Let's shape it, boldly and together. The writer is co-founder of FatakPay.
