> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.
Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.
I do a lot of things as an amateur but at pretty high level: athletics, music, art and more.
I also pay a huge portion of my income as a software developer in direct and indirect taxation. Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living, the same things I love to do but realize can't be your sole pursuit.
You've conflated people busting ass who can't keep up with those following their passion in the arts voluntarily. Those don't feel anything like the same thing to me. I don't think I'm alone in a perspective that if you keep taking more from me I'll stop contributing all together, and we'll all fail. The ultra-rich and others with means to avoid picking up the tab have already done so.
> Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living, the same things I love to do but realize can't be your sole pursuit.
You already are, it's just going to the ultra wealthy and pension fund kids, while you slave your life away making that stock go up because you believe there should be no other choice.
Because the worker doesn't have the ability to be able to protect his interests when he is just keeping his money.
The rich are able to keep larger portions of their income, and then eventually leverage that to be patrons of political power and set the rules for themselves.
You are also not in the same category as the super rich, so theres an unspoken blurring of the terms here as well - theres no sense in considering a normal perso, or a rich person against someone like Bezos, who has the wealth of several countries.
> Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much.
So what does this have to do with income inequality? If you try to make a living from a business and the revenue you get from it is not enough to keep it afloat, what does it say about it's viability and income inequality?
Sure, but he'd make more if he wasn't taxed so much.
In my country, from the customer to the persons net paycheck, a bit over half goes to the government (vat, 2x different benefits, income tax).
Every time someone mentiones taxes, the rich and the poor over here, the average (ie. people earning around average income) get taxed more, the rich on paper earn nothing, and the poor get taxed the same (because there's nothing more to take).
I'd much prefer a system where an average joe would pay a lower percantage of taxes (ie. a tax break), and people like bezos would actually get taxed at the same rate instead of paying zero throug loopholes).
I understand that you don’t like the European taxation regime, where the bulk of the tax burden is carried by the middle class, but I find it strange that then you give Bezos as a negative example. It is strange, because in US, unlike in Europe, it is the wealthy who pay most of the taxes. Our middle class pays very little tax, unlike middle class in Europe.
Consider two toy economies: One in which purchasing power is fairly evenly distributed among the population, and one in which it's concentrated via a power-law distribution into the top 1%, and 0.1%, etc.
In the first case, the quantities of mass-market products demanded will be much larger, because more people can afford to purchase them. This means demand for things like cameras, cell phones, breakfast cereals, movies, video games software, etc, go up. However most of these are also things where economies of scale makes production more efficient as order quantities increase. Factories can invest in jigs, automation, and high-throughput lines to make enough quantity for everyone. The jobs that produce these goods also become better-paid, and easier to secure investment for, because order quantities are higher and less volatile. And doubly so for intangible goods like software, ebooks, music, and video games: production can scale to infinite demand, so there can never be a production shortage, but people who work in these industries can be better rewarded for their efforts because a bigger audience can afford to pay more.
So order quantities grow, and so do incomes, but inflation is relatively low because of the increasing efficiency of production. This means real GDP per capita increases greatly, and the population as a whole becomes materially more wealthy. Even though wealth is being distributed away from top earners, there are huge material rewards available to anyone able to supply goods and services to the masses, because the masses are able to pay for those goods and services.
In the wealth-concentration economy, those mass-production industries have to fight for scraps, because the top 1% has as much purchasing power as the bottom 99%, and the top 0.1% has more purchasing power than the 1% below them. More purchasing power is directed towards luxury goods: golf courses, supercars, yachts, country club estates, Rolex watches, art, private jets, and real estate. Production quantities are low and inefficient, and in the case of land, production is effectively impossible. Prices go up for these assets, but there is little productive benefit to the economy. The excess wealth of the 0.1% is put towards buying political influence, buying news media, and so on, which becomes another negative for society as a whole. Meanwhile an entrepreneur might identify a pressing need among the bottom 25% of the populace, where very simple things (eg. vitamins or eyeglasses) could create an incredible increase in social welfare, but they will not be able to secure investment nor be rewarded for such efforts because there is no profit in it; the poor cannot afford to pay.
Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Because that's going to be YOU in the future. Because it's going to be your kids, your cousins, your neighbors.
> Because you have to live in a society with those other people.
Your reply was a strawman arguments, and fails to address OP's point. The point is quite simple and straight-forward: if your argument for UBI is that people could hypothetically pursue their interests, why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required to finance this income redistribution scheme only to have others, perhaps less talented and dedicated than me, pursue my interests at my expense?
why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required
You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. And far more of your tax bill is going toward subsidizing people and industries who are already rolling in money than helping relieve the burden on the poor.
I'm not saying you should pay more tax, you should probably be paying less. But we should reorganize the economy away from rewarding ownership of property as if it were productive economic economy activity in and of itself.
> The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it
No. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the question or you tried to avoid it. My question refers to the core argument involving any economic system: fairness and equity. Why are you trying to avoid touching on the topic?
> You're not. You are not the only person paying tax.
Yes, I am. Everyone is forced to pay taxes, and I am no different. In income redistribution schemes such as UBI you get a chunk of your salary taken straight from your pay check to finance other paychecks. So far this sort of scheme is used to cover salaries representing social safety nets such as pensions, disability, and temporarily for unemployed. UBI radically changes that, as it goes well beyond the role of social safety net and unconditionally extends this to everyone. So now you are faced with a scenario where you have two classes of people: those who sustain the scheme and make it possible, and those who only consume it's resources.
Even if you try to argue there's a net benefit to society, you must face the problem of lack of equity. For instance, how do you justify to people like OP that they should continue working at their jobs so that others can have the privilege of pursuing their personal interests? If you argue that OP is also free to quit his job to pursue his interests then you're advocating for an income redistribution scheme that presssures participants to not contribute to it and instead consume the resources it manages to mobilize.
Because the guy sticking out 60 hours a week at the office to get a comfortable middle class life loves his job just as much as the painter traveling to do his national parks series.
Therefore the government can tax the office worker and use the proceeds to buy the artists paintings and utopia is here!
You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.
Why are you pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care? Because society is more pleasant overall if everyone can assume a baseline availability for those things.
> You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.
That's fantastic. So let's build upon your personal belief, and as the system is universal then your recommendation is extended to everyone subscribing to the service.
Now please explain how you expect to finance an income redistribution scheme where all participants do not contribute back and instead only expect to consume from it.
Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society.
You need them for basically everything. You have built your life on shoulders of others. Everything you can do, you can do because you profit from other's labour. That is why. You would not have culture, language, computers, roads, garbage collection, nursing homes, music to listen to, etc. You have enjoyed all these things "at the expense" of the people who did that for you.
I love art and I also love making art, but I have to work so I don’t get to spend as much time on it as I’d like.
Yet that doesn’t mean I want to see other people making less art. On the contrary: I wish other people could create more great stuff that makes me happy, and I’m also happy if my tax euros (and my private consumption) help pay for that.
What I’m trying to say is that this idea of “I don’t get to do it, so nobody else should either” seems completely foreign to creativity. It’s not a zero-sum game.
“I don’t get to do it, so nobody else should either”
That's not it at all. There are already tons of people doing it, so many that the incremental value of one more person is small. The low pay reflects that; it's a signal that you should consider other jobs that are more in demand.
I want artists I’ve never heard of to have the ability to grow.
Taxes are a great way to fund culture, sort of like an index fund: I don’t have to try to pick winners now, I’ll get the accumulated benefit eventually.
Are you in the top 1%? If so, you can afford it. If not, then I don't think your taxes should go up - I think Bezos' taxes should go up, and there should be a wealth tax for high net worth individuals.
The logic extends flawlessly so it's difficult to say "I'm all for UBI, but only within our borders".
The US has used cheap labor globally for decades, why would the blue collar worker in Indiana qualify more than the blue collar worker in Indonesia? Both are making goods for American billionaires and both are struggling.
It seems that UBI arguments are all about "fairness". So it naturally should extend to other countries it seems. Otherwise you are just creating another greedy / protected group.
Of course people usually try to draw the UBI Venn diagram such that they are a net receiver of funds.
It is hard to say "I want UBI because inequality" and then fail to recognize this.
What they are really saying is "I don't want anyone to be richer than I am but fine with people being poorer". So the default human position on things.
What would be absurd about a global UBI? It's amazing how fast people jump off the high horse of equality when you point out that on a global scale they are incredibly rich and privileged.
Equality to them means them getting more material goods, not them giving up more material goods.
> Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living
I cannot do that.
But given that we need the labour of about 10% (give or take) of people for society to function, we need to change our economic arrangements
I think we should fund the basic meat hook realities for the common person. Accommodation, food, health care, shoes...
That is a UBI - Universal Basic Income
It will simplify so many aspects of modern life, increase our taxes, and open up many opportunities
The current system has failed to deliver anything like economic justice and needs rethinking
This will mean that people are able to "focus full-time on things where they can't make a living", rather than hustle for crusts. That is a side effect, not the purpose
I feel like this is one of the fundamental issues with US taxation today and this overall issue of wealth inequality. People like you, high-income and likely not a lot of shelters for that income based on what you're saying, pay a lot of taxes percentage-wise and so the thought of paying another 1-2 percentage points is, for lack of a better word, sickening. I tend to think you're right about that because it feels really unfair when you're paying 40-50% tax, a lot of people pay zero, and then people who are much wealthier than you are paying 20%.
It's when you start making fabulous amounts of money, and can park it in all sorts of shelters, whether that's straightforward things like real estate or, as HN commenters point out every time this comes up, by not ever even earning income or investment gains and so you can drive your tax towards zero (by doing things like taking out loans against your assets for money to live on).
I'm not sure what the answer is, but a North Star, in my mind, would be that as you have more you pay more, a truly progressive scheme, because every additional dollar you earn (through income or investment gains, realized or unrealized), as you get richer, actually is less critical to your livelihood. Who am I to say that? I'm not talking about some nebulous concept. I'm saying that if you make $1 million dollars per year, in total, a dollar extra matters less to you than it does to someone making $100,000 so I'm purely speaking on a relative basis (cue someone saying "how do you know it matters less? That person could live in a HCOL location, or have 12 kids or..." Hopefully we can avoid that because it misses the point; those things are choices people make. How much you're taxed is not a choice for the most part though can be to some extent (move from a high-tax state to a low one, etc.).
There's actually a mathematical proof that the more dollars you have, the lower the utility of the marginal dollar; utility has to fall at least logarithmically or else you face the St. Petersburg paradox.
If all the people who passionately pursue art decided to pursue only profitable full-time jobs, you bet that your software developer job would pay shit like an art and you'd be way worse off than if you just paid a few hundred bucks (at most, let's be real, unless you have serious assets in which why would we pity you) annually to allow to a civilized society that actually allows for cultural innovations.
If you want to talk about the root of problems, it comes down to preferences. Income inequality in musicians? People prefer some musicians and songs over others. UBI and taxation isn't going to meaningfully change the income inequality between the median and top earners in entertainment fields due to social dynamics. Guess what the primary driver of the housing shortage is? Preference for larger homes and "better" locations. There are enough housing units nationally, but their distribution and charateristics don't match the preferences. You might be thinking about NIMBY, but guess what that is? The preferences of the people already there. Solutions like UBI or just building more skip a logical step of evaluating the true underlying causes and presume them instead. To solve a problem we must first understand it.
In Britain it’s noticeable that as unemployment benefit and social housing has been stripped back the proportion of people from working class backgrounds with careers in the arts has declined. The most visible example of this is probably actors; pretty much all the current generation of British actors went to public school and were able to support themselves via family wealth as they became established. This wasn’t the case for the generation coming through in the 70s and 80s. The underlying cause is that if you can’t subsist as you learn your craft you can’t learn your craft, I don’t think this is mysterious.
This doesn’t just apply to the arts, if all junior dev roles are stripped away by llm’s where do the talented developers of tomorrow come from? Those who can learn the craft on their own time, those with independent wealth.
At a societal level there is a huge amount of potential talent being left on the table, and imo redistributive policies are the obvious fix. In think this is really important both from a mortal point of view and an economically pragmatic one.
The real question then is why the "professionals" in these fields are able to command such massive incomes, and why people are prepared to pay multiple hundreds to watch their favourite singer but won't drop into a free gig at an open mic night. Why some footballers can can earn millions per week, and the lower tiers of the sport are paid so little. Why top actors can earn more from one film than even most doctors or lawyers will earn in their lifetime, while other decent actors spend their entire careers working as an extra, etc...
Clearly everyone can see that the system is "unfair" in almost every industry, so the question is why does everybody perpetuate this system. It seems to be that by and large, people are prepared to pay more to get more of whatever they consider "the best" and they care much less about everything else in that space.
But shift the focus away from people and to products - why are so many people willing to pay over $1000 for the latest iPhone, when they already have the previous year's phone, and a $100 phone probably does 90% of what they need.
Again, it's because people want the best they can afford, and so the market increases the price to the point that maximises the product of price and people prepared to pay that price. Sadly, for the aspiring musician that hasn't been scouted yet, the price is low and even then not many people are prepared to pay it. This is why we have record labels who scout for talent, front them some money up front, handle publicity and building an audience, hoping that one of their 100+ artists might make enough that they can pay for the rest and still make a profit.
This has nothing to do with subsisting while learning your craft. This is about a supply and demand difference and the inequality in entertainment roles. If you have too many actors, then the nobodies get paid next to nothing while the famous people get the lion's share. And many of those nobodies never make even close to earning a living because the supply side is saturated and the demand side doesn't want to pay for that art. You have to have buyers.
Class in this context is referring to the actors' backgrounds, i.e. parental incomes, rather than their own income. There is an issue if you have to be born to a rich family in order to take on a career like acting, and right now, at least based on the evidence, that appears to be true: you need a sufficient safety net to be able to survive for a long time on basically no income while you practice and work low-paying gigs until you finally break through. For some people that just isn't possible.
A social safety net means that more people have the ability to try out risky careers - not necessarily that more of them will succeed, but that the pool of applicants will be larger and include a wider proportion of the population.
Does society benefit from there being lots of lottery winners from a variety of backgrounds? I think there is a big difference between having a thriving arts landscape and having a thriving landscape of people who won the lottery.
The inequality of musicians is not about what they earn once they make a living making music. Professional instrumentalists, for example, tend to be paid fairly equally (though not necessarily well).
It's about who gets to become a musician, because practicing the skill takes a lot of resources, and it seems the middle class can no longer afford that.
>> It's about who gets to become a musician, because practicing the skill takes a lot of resources, and it seems the middle class can no longer afford that.
Most of the middle class has lots of time to practice (just do that instead of watching TikTok). Practice can help you become a better musician, but cannot make you great - innate talent is needed for that. Being great is also no guarantee of success - luck and / or other forms of skill are needed (marketing capability, etc).
This is also only on the performance side of things. The real limiting factor in music for the most part is writing songs that people want to hear. If you can do that you will be successful almost immediately because supply and demand is so out of balance here and distribution is trivial.
This seems extremely overly reductive. It's not just "time to practice".
It's also about having access to equipment that is available, clean, and in proper working order.
And it's about having access to educators who can teach you what you are doing right or wrong. And those educators having the time to be able to actually do so.
And it's about having the ability to attend performances or competitions so that you can learn to actually perform and to receive impartial critique to improve. That doesn't just mean having the option of attending these events but also being able to afford the fees associated with the events as well as being able to afford transportation (whether that's getting there yourself or having family being able to take time off from work to transport you there and back).
You don't need every one of these to be able to succeed but each one of these legs you take away is one less leg the next generation of lower and middle class musicians have to stand on.
The focus here again seems to be on the plight of the Orchestral musician / related. While this might represent a large portion of mind share in some groups it is tiny from an economic perspective when compared to mainstream recording acts. The primary instruments driving this revenue are as follows: 1) voice 2) drums 3) bass 4) guitar 5) keyboard. None of these things are expensive or hard to maintain. You don't even need to be particularly good at any of these things other than voice.
That's also true for programmers, machinists, all kinds of engineers, pilots, etc.
A cheap guitar + youtube to start is a lot cheaper than anything involving eg. CNC machining, where most people can't even think about starting the process, way before the "get good" phase. Just obtaining a mac + an iphone is hard to impossible in many places on earth, especially for younger people.
This doesn't work in practice. Marketing for instance rewards spending far more than skill. Sure social media/viral marketing can theoretically be free, but that just kicks the can down the road. My friend's band is (in my opinion) terrific, but despite constantly playing shows and posting everywhere haven't gotten "instan" success". They haven't gotten the recommendation algorithms or playlists skewed in their favor by signing with a major publisher but that comes with its own problems
The idea that the middle class musician ever existed at all is a false premise. Lamenting the loss of something that never existed is pretty ridiculous. "Ahh, remember the good old days when one could make a middle class living as an amateur ski jumper". How can we get back to that? Of course, UBI / communism.
I've known quite a few people who made quite good livings playing 5-nights a week at hotel lounges in BFE. You're not going to recognize any, because they aren't famous, they just made their living going around playing music and weren't super famous. Even the relatively "famous" ones I have worked with (say, marc benno or paul pearcy or jay boy adams) aren't known by folks outside of very small circles.
IME, the consolidation of radio, changes in taste around live music, and the dissolution of paying for recorded music all worked to get rid of that group of folks.
But that doesn't mean that I haven't played with a lot of folks who are now in their 70s and 80s who made a good living playing music for folks.
Thanks for the names that you provided. I'd say these are examples of people that had some success and then pivoted to become session / touring musicians for other (very famous) bands (though one is a Grammy award winner in their own right). I suppose it is possible that there will be fewer people like that in the future. I guess we will see.
Perhaps the artist in the article could similarly pivot. At least, that seems to be the main way to stay in the industry if you are unable (for whatever reason) to attain commercial success.
This is an obvious trolling attempt, but I'll bite. Very simple statistical sample for those interested:
- Go on the wikipedia page for the notable alumni of Berklee College of Music[1];
- Sort by graduation years;
- Notice the "early life" snippet on the bio of most musicians from the 1970-2000.
- Compare those with the bio from artists from and before such interval. Bonus points for taking in consideration how many musicians past year 2000 come from a family with an already existing musical background.
Well, I do mean in the context of the article. I'm not suggesting no one ever played in an orchestra. I'm saying that are vanishingly few middle class touring and recording rock, hip hop, pop and country artists and this has largely always been the case. In this domain you either hit it out of the park or go on to do something else.
I don't really know what the table of Berklee grads is pointing toward. Are you suggesting that this says it is now harder to become a middle class recording / touring artist today than it was in the past? If so, how?
A question for the downvoters. How many of your middle class neighbours are recording / touring artists playing original pop, rock, hip hop or country music? Did you have a lot more such neighbours 20 years ago?
20 years ago I knew a bunch of people in their teens and early twenties. Now I know a bunch of people in their 40s and I couldn't tell you what the teens around me are doing. Are you sure you're not just picking up on the fact that you're 20 years older now?
My point is 20 years ago I had zero middle class neighbours that fell into this category and that number is the same today. I suspect those numbers represent most people's experiences as well.
The article is suggesting that there is a delta between the past and the present. My argument is there is no delta. There were always nearly zero people in this category.
This is nonsense. The music business relies on a core of largely unknown session players and arrangers. The successful ones earn a comfortable living. The top players are easily millionaires, because there aren't many people who can learn and perform parts by ear with the right vibe for a headliner stadium or Broadway show in under a week. (Or a weekend, in some cases.)
There are people you've never heard of earning six or seven figures a year from music for ads.
And so on.
The catch is these people are very, very good at what they do. They're not bedroom wannabes.
As for pop - that has always had a complex relationship with management and funding. Everyone assumes you join a band and get famous. But many bands/artists were treated more like investment vehicles or startups, with record companies and sometimes private individuals providing seed funding for careers.
It's a much riskier career than software, where you can be pretty mediocre and make a good living.
But impossible and nonexistent are both spectacularly wrong and absolutely detached from how the industry works.
Looks like about 3/4 of musicians are part time. The average salary of $57k for the full time workers is about $1k over the minimum to be considered middle class. And the unemployment rate is about 18%.
There's no doubt that there are some middle class and higher earners. It seems that most are part time, don't make much and face higher unemployment than many other sectors. Sector growth is alaso very slow. There's a reason that most people's parents don't push them to pursue music careers unless it's as a teacher or if they're exceptional. Same thing for sports - you can make decent money as a college coach or gym teacher, but the proportion of people who play sports that go on to do anything professionally with it is extraordinary small. It's all supply and demand.
The article isn't focused on the plight of the session Broadway player or Orchestral musician (nor artists writing music for ads or movies or acting as a session musician for a headliner act). It isn't clear that this is getting better or worse but is completely orthogonal to the discussion.
Mainstream recording artists (pop, country, R&B, rock, etc.) represent the vast majority of industry revenues. My argument is that middle class musicians have effectively never existed in this space. Just like middle class professional basketball players effectively don't exist. You either win big or do something else.
You can get a decent, 3 bed, 2 bath house for 100k. Just move to some place like Tucumcari, NM. Why not? Oh...right...the same reasons no one else moves to places like that...
Preferences don’t explain why we aren’t building housing where people want to live. Mid rise buildings don’t need to be particularly expensive per square foot. ~11 million for a 50 unit building is 220k / apartment not 100k cheap but way better than what you see near most cites people want to live in. 2 to 3x housing density requires extra transportation infrastructure but it also means being able to support such infrastructure.
Instead walk around most expensive city’s and you see single family dwellings /row houses in sight of high rises / skyscrapers. That’s not economic efficiency that’s people who can afford high housing prices likening the system the way it is.
You need to find a way to convince the owners of that inefficient housing to sell it to a developer so that they can demolish it to build the efficient housing. That will add significantly to the unit economics of the efficient housing.
At the start you might be adding a few million in land costs and building taller, but that quickly deflates the housing market. Pushing people to sell before their homes become ever less valuable. Further cities outlive people, reluctant homeowners eventually die.
City infrastructure similarly has real costs, but an infrastructure tax on every net new unit isn’t going to see anywhere close to current prices.
Sure, you could argue that some people prefer to not live a destitute life, and that influences the high price of housing. But that is reductive, ignoring a host of other factors, which again, you might be able to boil down to preference (wealthy capitalists prefer to make more money) but again, it's reductive and offers a somewhat shallow perspective and not much to act on.
You would at least be able to act on the true cause rather than chase short term changes that may not even work or won't scale. If it's indicative of a distribution problem, then we should be investigating distribution solutions. If you can't see this connection, then I posit that you might have the shallow perspective.
The definition of "make a living" is highly subject to preferences. The vacant houses are in areas where other people live. If those other people can't make a living, then shouldn't we improve the economy in that area rather than ship those people off to more congested areas or leave the homes vacant?
This isn't about any one industry failing, it's about a system designed to funnel value upwards while pretending the rest of us are just not hustling hard enough
I think “design” is the wrong word. Many systems are unjust by default, and that’s certainly true of hit-driven businesses like music. Justice doesn’t happen unless people make it happen, and often, most people don’t care.
For example, lotteries are inherently unjust, making random people wealthy for no reason, and hardly anyone cares. They just hope to win themselves.
Taylor Swift fans don’t care that she makes far more money than other talented musicians who languish in obscurity. They’re going to keep giving her more money. If you told them they shouldn’t because it perpetuates inequality, they wouldn’t get it.
Yes, I think this is broadly following the lines of Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" example in his response to Rawls' A Theory of Justice. If Wilt doesn't want to play for less than $N but is happy to play for $N, and his fans are happy to collectively pay $N to see him play, it's arguably a bit weird for the state to step in and say they shouldn't be allowed to or that Wilt should be compelled to play for free.
They're very different visions of what "justice" means: one focused on snapshots of distribution, one focused on processes.
Interestingly, music wasn't hit-driven in 1920. A person could earn a decent but not lavish middle class living as a musician, through things like performance, teaching, theaters, and so forth.
An example was that Miles Davis grew up in a middle class family -- his dad was a dentist -- who thought that becoming a musician was an OK career.
Sure, there were stars -- for instance in sheet music publishing -- but since then the working-class musician jobs have nearly vanished.
this is true in some urban settings agree. Rural people had barter and fell into patterns of farm labor. A wild guess is that the bar and the church were social magnets where cultural arts and entertainment could be done professionally to some extent. A very large base factor is "humans do culture, how to include monetary compensation for things that people do already" ?
I think lottery is a great analogy to contemporary society. Although those with the winning tickets have done their darndest to convince others that it was skill and hard work that got them the tickets.
Do you think inequality is unjust? They increase inequality, and there’s no possible argument that a lottery winner did anything to deserve their good fortune.
It’s the opposite effect of insurance, where society works to undo the results of bad luck.
Maybe that's what insurance should be. It doesn't seem to be that way now. People build large fancy homes or fancy cars and then off load the risk to insurance. The problem with this is that it tends to increase costs for other in the pool and disincentivizes risk mitigating behavior. If I know that insurance will pay out for my car, then I can drive more aggressively. I want my home to look fancy and be huge instead of being built to survive local natural disasters, but that preference might change if I didn't have insurance.
I get what you're saying, though it is nuanced. For example, no insurance company in its right mind would insure a home in San Francisco against earthquake damage if the home isn't actually built to code in terms of its ability to withstand earthquakes. Similarly, car insurance companies charge way higher premiums for drivers with a history of accidents and tickets for reckless driving.
My point being, yes insurance obviously decreases risk for owners, but since insurance companies are the ones inheriting that financial risk, they also inherit the incentive to ensure that things are being done the right way.
Not really. It does when it comes to stuff like code. But none of that address the larger and fancier homes than if they were not insured. Similarly, if other people are buying much more expensive cars, your liability insurance will increase even if your risk stays the same - the likelihood of occurrence is the same but the cost per occurrence is higher.
Consider life insurance. It's about providing for widows and orphans. Before there was insurance, there were mutual aid societies, because it was very important to society to hedge that risk so that people aren't destitute after an accident.
It's unjust in the same sense that some people complain about capitalism being unjust: some people are wealthy who didn't cosmically deserve it, but just got lucky. There is disagreement over in which way they were lucky (random luck, or lucky to have the right parents, education, genes, etc.)
it's exactly the right word. Taylor Swift herself is a product. No less artificial than Boy bands and Kpop idol groups. These aren't hit or miss businesses, they're scientifically engineered performances, the music industry is literally that, an industry. Taylor Swift doesn't wake up in her bedroom with disheveled hair writing songs and people just flock around her, every piece of song writing, merch, marketing, and performance is micro-managed by an entire team of people.
And for that reason you can actually design the opposite. You can break up platforms that produce megastars, you can promote local music, local venues and artists, you can make people care and design what kind of artistic culture you want to be in.
Well yes, but isn't it also a search process that discovers new trends? When another kind of performer attracts fans, the music industry will latch onto that trend instead. And that's a function of the music, the promotion, and the audience.
It's true that when they find something that works, it will be exploited.
I'd describe it more as a system designed to enable capital to better purchase assets built by persons without. Taylor Swift sold her early work to someone with capital, who then owned her as the labels owned the artists in the article.
The answer might be then to disallow capital from buying artists so easily. One option, which Canada does partially have on the books, is a concept of non-divestible "artist rights". If fully implemented, Taylor Swift would be incapable of selling away her works fully, always retaining a degree of control. This would no doubt reduce the value of art but would keep control in the hands of artists. So when the artist feels dissatisfied, they can always walk away no matter what contact they have signed earlier in their career.
NerdCubed did a video recently about similar experiences when publishing a book.
I would argue the system is designed for efficiency. Economic solutions to this problem are about introducing legally-mandated inefficiencies, like limiting competition or artificially increasing labor costs
Efficiency for extracting money from poor people to mega corporations? Seems to me there isn't really a lot of competition left since theres a handful of main players that just buy out smaller competitors.
Water systems generelly cover the whole city, often more than one city in a MSA, not just a community. There are community water systems but most are bigger.
They have clean running water because of the ordinary people who work to provide it and maintain the pipes.
They have light and television because of the ordinary working people who work at and maintain electricity plants and design, sell, assemble electrical products.
These things exist despite the billionaire leeches not because of them.
The root of the problem is that the rules of the economy are unfair.
By analogy, try playing a game of monopoly but enter the game after a few rounds have already been played. Exorbitant housing prices are an example.
Another problem is that while it is fine if hardworking people make more money, these people can use that money __against__ people who made different life choices, in various ways, consciously and unconsciously.
We have to acknowledge that the system is broken, and it is starting to show.
> [...] a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high.
What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off? We can 'solve' inequality by just destroying everything the rich have, but that won't make anyone better off.
Btw, the absolute living standards of all members of society, including the least well off, have never been better. And that's true for almost any society you care to look at on our globe. (Removing eg those currently at war, that weren't at war earlier.)
I agree that Wikipedia wasn't the best source to go for criticism: Wikipedia is very sympathetic to the claims like in the book, so the criticism section is very weak sauce.
It is indeed noble that the authors responded to the criticism, but unlike what Wikipedia seems to imply, they didn't manage to rescue their argument.
A blog post referencing another blog post doesn’t seem to rise to the level of total disregard for the original study. But maybe we can try Wikipedia again.
Good points, he seems to be in to something in the health field, but the analysis was incomplete and flawed. Given the importance of the health results, perhaps someone could build on top of that and build an improved study?
> And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off?
The two are connected. You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), or transfer it from the rich to the poor. In both cases the rich become less rich in relative terms. It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant.
> You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), [...]
Helicopter money transfers real wealth from the people who previously held cash.
It creates nominal wealth, but not real wealth.
> It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant.
Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea.
That's basically just the idea from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44411538 inverted. Many people have a hard time seeing that wealth can increase, but it's pretty easy to see that total wealth can decrease: I can set fire to my piano, and no one else gets any better because of it.
How does taking some ones second mansion away to help feed struggling family decrease happiness? If there is a net decrease, the rich person needs to examine their priorities.
> Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea.
You are conflating two different things, wealth and misery.
Wealth is about material resources not misery or happiness. This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes and their twentieth estate make them "more miserable" sure, probably, but it also secures the independence of the people you make that house available to (rather than make them permanent wage slaves to the landed class that just scoops up homes that they don't materially need need to extract rents etc).
> This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich.
You realize most of this wealth is tied up in stocks and other assets that anyone can purchase, right?
> Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes
But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?
> and their twentieth estate
And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
> But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?...
One of the bigger ways this plays out as opposed to your example is:
Tons of property is locked up as short term vacation rentals that are only used a tiny percent of the time and only by the rich. There's a spectrum of how rich but we know the bottom 50% almost never use them for example
Similarly the amount of resources locked up in industries that 99% of the time only cater to the very rich is quite a lot and more importantly the trajectory is going more and more that direction.
You could have a world where the work is done mostly by robots and a few million rich people use the world as their playground and then what happens to everyone else?
> Similarly the amount of resources locked up in industries that 99% of the time only cater to the very rich is quite a lot and more importantly the trajectory is going more and more that direction.
Sources?
In any case, what you say seems to suggest that consumption taxes would be the way to go.
> Tons of property is locked up as short term vacation rentals
You might not want to dig too closely into who exactly owns all these short term vacation rentals. There's a non-trivial number of people who aren't conventionally what we picture as being "wealthy" who own a lot of them. It was a very popular Covid-era life hack to buy a house at an absurdly low interest rate and rent it out. And that's not getting into people who just managed to buy a house at the right time. For example, I'm just a software engineer in a MCOL area but I bought my first house in the early 2000s and paid it off a little under 20 years later. I sold to fund the next house, but I could've easily bought something more modest and rented the old one out. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
> that are only used a tiny percent of the time and only by the rich. There's a spectrum of how rich but we know the bottom 50% almost never use them for example
Are you under the impression that you have to be fabulously wealthy to rent an AirBNB for the weekend?
Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily.
It doesn't matter that "anyone can purchase them". If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount.
> But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?
I didn't mention either of these people. There are plenty of people not in the limelight that do precisely the things I'm talking about, often through banks and companies that they run—I can have my investment firm buy property and increase my salary off the extracted rents and it achieves the same thing.
> And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
Exactly. You just restated the problem with inequality. It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Further they can they use this exclusivity to further entrench their positions.
> If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount.
And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist.
> Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily.
Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation!
> It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources.
Look, no matter how little income inequality is, you're gonna have to be rich to say, buy a building in Manhattan or a house in some similarly coveted area.
> Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation!
Interestingly, my broker lets me just pile up the interest and doesn't expect me to pay anything back, but only as long as my overall portfolio is worth comfortably more than my debt.
Of course, if I ever want to actually get at all my money, I'll need to pay the debt off.
Btw, leveraging your stock portfolio isn't all that different from a mortgage on your house. But people seem to be much more confused about the effects of the former than the latter. It seems to be easier for people to understand that a mortgage ain't an infinite money machine.
> And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist.
I don't have a problem with differences in wealth. My problem is with (a) differences so extreme that they border on the inhumane (we arguably have enough resources amassed to end world hunger, yet people still starve. Why?) (b) People are fed the lie that this system is purely meritocratic. That is plainly untrue. That was my point about the relative "distance" your money can go. If you are born into a wealthy family, you can basically live a zero-labor life and continue to reap rewards, generate more income, gather more resources for yourself, concentrate capital. When your origin is the greatest determining factor in wealth, it's a gross lie to suggest to day laborers that if they just "work hard" they too can strike it rich.
Sure, I would agree that under the current system manhattan remains unaffordable. But this is not an essential property of manhattan, as you seem to think. It is a side effect of the current economic structure we have. Alternative structures would lead to significantly more affordable living in the city. In fact the NYC dems just voted for a mayoral candidate who wants to establish such an alternative. People who think like you are increasingly becoming the minority, and it's because it's glaringly and exceedingly obvious that there are massive problems of wealth distribution in the current system. You can honestly identify that there are issues and ask for solutions without being anti capitalist.
People get so caught up in morality when it comes to wealth, which is absurd. As if somehow wanting some of Bezos money to be redistributed so that it can feed people instead of paying for 500mil dollar yatchs is a moral affront. How about we instead focus on the moral affront of underpaying workers, having them the piss in bottles in warehouses, gaming the system by incorporating offshore, the list is endless. It's hilarious that anyone would defend the rights of these robber barons. You've got to be either seriously brainwashed or an extreme ideologue to think that there are no issues with inequality today. Even staunch capitalists are starting to admit there are problems. Its simple systems dynamics. Any system that maximizes singular variables is necessarily unstable and heading toward collapse.
But, if empirically our current system for net wealth creation tends to also produce wealth concentration, it makes sense to consider ways of modifying the system to mitigate some of the wealth concentration while maintaining as much of the wealth creation as possible.
The target you should look for is how much wealth gets created for the least well-off (or for some low percentile representative person). Just don't worry about what the rich people doing at all. No need to punish them.
Where is the "wealth created for the least well off" going to come from?
Necessarily, that must be wealth that did' go to the rich instead (it could have!). So, necessarily, you are "punishing" them by doing so.
You mainly seem to be against some kind of hypothetical robinhoodesque style redistribution because you worry it's unfair to the rich. Any solution, though, will have to take this shape, whether it targets the existing wealth or wealth generated going forward. It's all about redistribution of access no matter how you slice
You don't need to be so protective of the rich. They are doing just fine and they have plenty of resource and mechanisms in place to protect themselves. If the world's wealthiest people were made even just a tiny bit less wealth by redistribution of assets they would still be living like absolute kings.
> Where is the "wealth created for the least well off" going to come from?
Well, mostly where everyone's wealth is coming from: from the fruits of their own labour.
> You mainly seem to be against some kind of hypothetical robinhoodesque style redistribution because you worry it's unfair to the rich.
No, I haven't started worrying about fairness, yet. No, I'm afraid that a tax system designed by what sounds good instead of what works will leave the poor even worse off.
Only tiny fraction of a billionaire's wealth tends to be the fruit of their personal labor. It's the labor of their employees and machines that create the wealth. To my understanding, this is broadly accepted.
Now, billionaires do supply a different key ingredient to the wealth creation - risk. Without investment and risk, wealth cannot be created. In terms of $ investment, billionaires take on the vast majority of the risk and deserve the bulk of the rewards, the argument goes. Workers take on far less risk with their guaranteed* paycheck .
But which is the bigger risk? A billionaire's $100,000,000? Or your home, your health, and your retirement savings were you to lose your job in a bad market?
I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
> I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
Please feel free to start your own company or cooperative.
> But which is the bigger risk? A billionaire's $100,000,000? Or your home, your health, and your retirement savings were you to lose your job in a bad market?
This parallels the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, which states that with extreme wealth, you can't buy any more to get more utility or happiness.
In a way, the risk phenomenon picks up where that phenomenon leaves off, where the need for normal "utility" gives way to the desire for amassing power over society at large.
The mistake they make is not realizing how much of their wealth and welfare relies on the welfare of the masses.
> I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
Ironically this is a tiny bit of what we saw with employee stock options in the early days of the internet industry, reflected in the historically outsized power and voice of workers. Arguably, that is a part of the rationale behind the big tech layoffs - to put labor back in its place.
You clearly believe you're very objective and applying very "rational" thinking to the problem. It's about the dollar value of the income of the least well-off, so what are these stupid people even talking about inequality? Don't they realise making a poor person 10% worse off and Bezos 11% worse off reduces inequality but lowers the floor (the pedestrian argument you've made several times in this thread)?
But please consider that the problem is slightly (i.e. a lot) more complicated than you think. Economics is a very very hard discipline and perhaps more closely related to philosophy than the natural sciences. There have been countless books written on the topic of inequality by people smarter than you or me, so it's highly it's all so simple as your dismissive "just do X" line imagines it to be.
A simple, almost trivial observation: very high inequality of wealth also means very high inequality of power, meaning the rich elite can and will influence the political process to enrich themselves further at the expense of the "low percentile" less well-off, which will be denied political power. This is one example of why you should care about inequality.
Wealth redistribution has this positive effect: If you take $1000 from a billionaire and give it to a very poor person, total happiness increases.
It also has a negative effect, high level of redistribution can inhibit production.
The optimal level of redistribution depends on what you're optimizing, it's usually a mix of societal happiness and some notion of fairness. (I personally would want to optimize happiness and prosperity.)
> But please consider that the problem is slightly (i.e. a lot) more complicated than you think. Economics is a very very hard discipline [...]
Yes, and that's why I am saying that it's far from an obvious conclusion that making rich people worse off is a good thing for poor people.
And once you admit that this ain't trivial, you can look at topics like deadweight losses or tax incidence.
Different tax and redistribution system have different effects. It's not just 'more tax = more revenue to redistribute'.
For example, I actually think you can drive overall tax rates (eg as percentage of GDP) a lot higher than they are today in most countries without harming the economy, _if_ you switch to something as efficient as land value taxes for the vast majority of your government revenue (and lower other taxes). Property taxes are a second best approximation.
In contrast, capital gains taxes and income taxes are less efficient. Tariffs are even worse (by a large margin!), even if they could theoretically raise some revenue. Stamp duties or other taxes on transactions are also pretty bad. And silly things like price controls just hurt the economy without raising any revenue at all.
But that's all vastly simplified. As you suggest, there's lots of theory and practice you can investigate for the actual effects. They might also differ in different times and places.
> There have been countless books written on the topic of inequality by people smarter than you or me, so it's highly it's all so simple as your dismissive "just do X" line imagines it to be.
That's why I'm saying exactly the opposite: I'm arguing against the naive 'just tax the rich'.
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with equality at all. It's about the absolute level of prosperity of yourself (and presumably everyone else).
So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned.
If absolute prosperity is what matters, how is the US the richest country in the world, while being pretty much the only one where medical bankruptcy is a thing?
In poorer countries, instead of medical bankruptcy, there just isn't medicine available. The poor in sub-saharan africa are not receiving first class government funded medical care.
This is a total red herring. We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa. As Americans who want to fix your country, you should be looking at countries with similar standards of living, such as every single European country. You can even pick the rich ones, like the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, or Germany.
The alternative to the current situation in the US is not abject poverty.
The US isn't the richest country in the world (per capita). What makes you think so? However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.
And in any case, I'm saying absolute prosperity of individual people matters. Not the average per capita absolute prosperity of a country.
So people who go into medical bankruptcy in the US are obviously not individually rich. And I hope you and me agree, that if you could find a way to make them better off, that would be a good thing?
Whereas if you found a way to make them worse off by 20%, but make Mr Zuckerberg worse off by 50%, that would not be advisable, even if it technically decreases inequality.
It's the richest country in absolute terms, and the richest per-capita if you exclude small countries.
As a side note, it really shouldn't be possible to edit comments two hours after they've been posted and after they've had replies. Particularly without showing any indication of that.
No one is suggesting to "make Mr Zuckerberg worse off".
The inequality problem is about access to material resources. Money is just an abstraction. No one is seriously suggesting to refuse zuckerberg access to good things on principle or to just diminish and not redistribute his wealth, that's preposterous.
The point is that access to capital is access to resources. The people that hoard capital necessarily end up hoarding important resources and they use this imbalance to then extract further capital from others and further their position, thus in turn gives them power. The problem is all about bringing more balance to this situation so that we avoid a return to feudalism in which a handful of people have control over all the resources and power and everyone is is basically just beholden to their whims.
No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists.
The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon; that money in amazon's hands is absolutely cycling through the economy.
Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries).
> We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there.
In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.
I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality.
The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.)
> And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists.
I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure.
UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off.
> The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se.
Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation.
However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
Your analysis is spot on. UBI funded by taxes is redistribution.
Is that a bad thing? It would obviously have some negative effects. We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain.
The upside though? My hunch is that making most people feel secure enough to risk starting/joining businesses is fuel for a strong and innovative economy. The fact that so few of us are able to take those risks is a constraint on growth.
My assumption is that UBI is a significant transfer of wealth from the richest to the rest. Isn't that the whole point? Exactly how to structure the taxes that pay for it is naturally a key question.
Given that, it's pretty safe to assume markets that cater exclusively to the ultra-wealthy will be harmed by reduced demand as their customer base shrinks.
Higher tax rates will also exert downward pressure ob stock values as companies make less profit and investors tighten their belts. (Especially if there's a wealth tax.)
> However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
Don't be silly. Smoking one cigarette is generally not problematic. Smoking thousands will tend to give you lung cancer.
Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't own stocks. People are arguing that asset concentration taken to extremes is like smoking too many cigs: so enough and you force bad outcomes on society and the economic system.
The economy is not a static thing in which the same goods and services are offered independent of the wealth distribution. The same work is not done.
When wealth is concentrated, prices cease to aggregate information and preferences from across the whole society. Instead they represent whatever stupid whim some clique of investors has developed. As a result you get massive malinvestments in speculative bullshit while basic things decay. It's the Politburo but dumber.
This determines the physical environment you live in, the services offered on your street, and the stuff you do at your job.
To be clear, confiscating everything Musk, Theil, Zuckerberg and Bezos have absolutely would make my life better off. Think about the amount of political meddling by Musk in the past year alone, things he could never do if he weren't so rich.
The reason inequality is a problem is very simple.
As inequality increases at scale it means that an increasingly concentrated group has more and more capital. What do they do with that capital? They buy assets, they are basically forced to do so by design.
What happens when they buy assets? They capitalize those assets. An apartment unit now becomes a home others can rent but not purchase.
Rinse and repeat until eventually wealth is so concentrated that the ability for any other individuals to access assets is basically zero. This means those individuals cannot build capital or ultimately wealth and it also means that, even if more resource become readily available, more people cannot afford them. They have to do 2x today what they did yesterday to an achieve the same amount of stability even if their "standard of living" has increased because of a wider swath of goods and services.
Honestly at this point I think that anyone who doesn't see inequality as a major driver of contemporary problems is simply not paying attention to the USA or must not live there. Countries in which it is less of a problem basically only mitigate it by having a state that can provide essentials to effectively prevent the capitaled class from taking them away from people (eg healthcare, as you mention).
Economics is all about the balance of who has access to what resources. We cannot just generate resources and capital out of thin air. One person getting more necessarily means another gets less. Period.
lol. Like many of Scott Alexander's essays, this is bad argumentation in nice window dressing, as well as a slight apologia for racism.
There are so many problems with this essay that it's hard to know where to begin, but two major ones are that (1) his reading comprehension sucks, (2) the major flaw in his line of argument is merely hand waved away—it relies on a fundamental premise that mobility of people in the south was zero after the civil war and that the civil war destroying an entire industry would have had zero effect (this is the part he hand waves away at the end of the article after making his idiotic apology for continued racism based on one solitary citation) As usual, it's an article making people unschooled in the actual practice of rigorous academic research to buy into bad ideas .
Anyway, that's all beside the point. A specific article countering a single claim against reparations has basically very little to do with the topic at hand unless you can prove the very specific set of dynamics that is analyzed in that case (a) applies globally, and (b) still applies today.
This style of argument is equivalent to saying "look i found one rock that was purple so all rocks must be purple". It has basically no relevance as far as I'm concerned.
I don't live in the US. We have a very different helthcare system where I live, and it's working well.
But again: providing universal healthcare is all about giving (poor) people more prosperity. It has nothing to do with inequality by itself.
If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
> If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
No, because we outnumber Mark Zuckerberg by more than 10 fold
Anyway, I would argue that having guaranteed healthcare is 10293762397697x better than not having guaranteed healthcare
> Anyway, I would argue that having guaranteed healthcare is 10293762397697x better than not having guaranteed healthcare
Sure, healthcare is nice. I see no disagreement.
> > If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
> No, because we outnumber Mark Zuckerberg by more than 10 fold
Well, fix the numbers any way you feel like. Eg say Mr Zuckerberg gets better off by whatever amount the rest of us together get better (eg in terms of healthcare) plus 10% extra.
Mark Zuckerberg would in fact need to have 8 billion times better healthcare than me for your argument to matter
I don't know anyone who really thinks that absolute inequality is the problem. people need a high floor - there is no inherent reason to want to lower the ceiling of wealth/benefits. but since there's no such thing as free lunch, we need to calculate by how much each % of ceiling that is lowered raises the floor. If we can reduce the ceiling by 10% and raise the floor by 100%, then that's worthwhile.
The hard part is calculating the benefits. There are non-linear effects when you try to predict the benefits of having a healthy and educated population, although the benefit should be enormous.
On the other hand it is very easy to calculate the downside of people not being wage-slaves: not needing to accept bottom wages, having time to understand what's actually going on in the world, organizing for or against particular causes, etc..
> What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
> And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off?
Answer to both those questions, simplifying massively: the most prosperous period of capitalism in the past 200 years was also that where there was the smallest levels of inequality.
The point of view that you must only look at the overall floor is terribly short-sighted (and even then, the lower and middle classes have become WORSE off in the past 40 years!). The massive increases in wealth have been going overwhelmingly to the pockets of the very rich; this is bad in itself, irrespective of the overall GDP growth or whatever.
> Answer to both those questions, simplifying massively: the most prosperous period of capitalism in the past 200 years was also that where there was the smallest levels of inequality.
You mean today? Today is the most prosperous period of all of world history. Or what period are you talking about?
Global inequality is also near all-time lows, thanks to China, India and the rest of Asia mostly catching up to the rich western countries. Alas, Africa is still quite poor, but they are working on it.
> The point of view that you must only look at the overall floor is terribly short-sighted (and even then, the lower and middle classes have become WORSE off in the past 40 years!).
In what sense?
> The massive increases in wealth have been going overwhelmingly to the pockets of the very rich; this is bad in itself, irrespective of the overall GDP growth or whatever.
> it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more.
Or, instead of handing out more and more money from the state, try to introduce dynamism again. Try to reduce the amount of times that YouTube takes videos or accounts down for example.
You're conflating three very different types of jobs here.
Minimum wage hourly jobs like grocery baggers need to be able to survive off a 40-hour week, and it's a societal problem if they can't.
Taxi drivers are essentially sole proprietors who set their own hours and accept higher risk for a higher payoff. Demand and supply will calibrate themselves unless the government distorts the market (eg. taxi medallions).
Musicians and actors are and have always been in a brutal power law market where all the wealth accrues to the 0.1% at the top of the heap. This drives exploitation since people will do anything to get to the top, but at the end of the day society does not need them the way it needs taxi drivers or grocery baggers and there is no economic rationale for subsidizing them.
The grocery bagger on a zero hour contract needs to be able to survive when not given 40 hours.
Also the 5% unemployed people in a 'full employment' economy need to be able to survive when sacrificed to control inflation.
> at the end of the day society does not need them the way it needs taxi drivers or grocery baggers
This is absolutely true. In my country psychologists are complaining about "low" wages and tough conditions, and yet people go study psychology in droves because they "find it interesting." There's only so much demand for any one thing and if you decide because you enjoy something you want to make that your career well tough shit, there's thousands like yourself and nobody wants more of what you supply. So you can keep it as a hobby, but to make a living you have to provide something that people want and need, otherwise you're just a leech on society. It's funny that the ones complaining about these issues are usually the people who care about the social aspect of things, yet there's absolutely nothing social about demanding money without contributing anything that others actually need.
I totally agree.
There's the inequality side of things were many working people are still in a precarious position. Then there's also the burnout / job conditions side of things where people can't persist in their roles without slowly losing their mental health.
Think about nurses, police officers, teachers etc. It can be solvable by making their work weeks shorter and/or by increasing the numbers of staff per student and many other things we can do - that are deemed too expensive now but can become realistic if we distribute the wealth in a more equal way.
Usually when people in western countries think about UBI, they are assuming that money from people richer than themselves will trickle down to them. What they don't realize is, globally, money will trickle out of their pockets to the rest of the world. Basically they are looking for a constrained hypothetical situation in which free money flows to them.
100% this. I don’t know how long we have to go on pushing at the “wealth will trickle down” door to discover it’s utter bullshit and always has been. The answer isn’t private companies, because they’re continuing to take the piss and make a small number of people incredibly wealthy at the expense of the majority.
It’s never a popular thing to say on HN but the country the typifies inequality most starkly is the US - and it’s also the one with the biggest set of problems: huge issues with drug use, obesity, widespread unhappiness, simmering resentment, a divided nation. The countries that are getting this right (and by right I mean GDP, happiness, heath, pretty much any meaningful index of “a good life”) are the ones that fund public services, healthcare, education, etc through higher taxes.
UBI seems inevitable with the progress of AI and automation -- but transitioning to it will need a catalyst to break through the wall of resistance to make that happen. Covid was such a catalyst, and at least in the US it was so poorly managed on the distribution of funds it did not help shift the mindset to support UBI.
That's a pity, because it could have done so brilliantly. The catch is that we need a government that is not corrupt and incompetent to administer that process and that's exactly what was in charge at the time.
So while it can't happen now it would be worth exploring what that tipping point might be and how to make sure it serves the people its supposed to.
It would set a minimum income that everyone would know they had.
Whatever work people did would add to that. It would encourage the unemployed to start businesses, or do casual work as they would keep all the money (rather than having their benefits cut).
How would this differ from the tension we have today between the employed and the unemployed? The latter are already heavily stigmatized (dole bludgers, welfare queens, etc).
Absolutely not. Our current system is closer to that because you lose benefits as your income increases, to the point where in some case it's possible to get a raise and end up worse off. With UBI (assuming it replaces most means-tested benefits), you're always better off earning more.
UBI was first piloted by Richard Nixon. These ideas are not fanciful. America has moved so hard to the right that anything slightly left of center seems radical and communist.
> Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high.
I actually read the article before going into the comment section, and your comment was surprising and baffling by how detached from the content of the post it was.
There are plenty of exploitation arguments made in it, but if you read the article is income inequality one of them? Well, no.
> It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more.
I think that this conclusion is far-fetched if your starting point is the actual article. The music business is notorious for being virtually impossible to make a living, even if you are an international act. There were plenty of examples from decades ago up until now of musicians from popular international bands with packed international tours not being able to afford to quit their day job to make ends meet. If your income comes from selling tickets to the public, sometimes directly, and you still cannot generate a livable income, the problem is not income inequality. The problem is that there is not enough demand for what you're selling to make it a viable business.
I mean, if your primary source of income is playing shows and not enough people want to spend money to attend them, why do you think the fact that some people earn way more than you is even relevant?
> Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.
Here is a though experiment: does your assertion hold valid if you replace "store baggers" and "taxi drivers" with "contortionists" or "jugglers"? Because while "store baggers" and "taxi drivers" aren't exactly activities associated with upper middle class income levels, they are activities that most people are coerced to have because they have no alternative to make a living. Musicians are another story altogether, and associated with people pursuing their dreams. In fact, there is that age old cliche about third generation wealth being artists and academics because their exceptional wealth allowed them to pursue their dreams.
Universal basic income is a bit impractical just now - give everyone free money and who will do the jobs that need doing? - but shortly will be very practical when robots/AI will do the jobs that need doing.
Why do so many rich people who could afford to retire work hard to make more? Why does hardly anyone on a high hourly rate work the minimum hours they need for an adequate income?
There have been numerous trials of UBI and I have yet to heard of one that showed people worked significantly less when given it.
I kind of figure people will work on things that don't really need doing like putting on music festivals etc. while the robots will do the essential work like grow food and take out the trash. Maybe I'm being optimistic. Although I have lived places where things worked a bit like that like when I was in South Africa a while ago with the blacks doing the less desirable jobs usually. So maybe like that but with robots?
my only problem with it is "give everyone 1400/mo and suddenly prices will rise by an effective rate of 1400/mo". I don't see any argument to counter that. I want it to work though.
The only way I could see it working is having a 2nd currency, comparable to SNAP benefits or housing vouchers, that is independent of the dollar (and not stigmatized either). Then let the dollar value of rents and food fluctuate as they may, but require that the UBI currency is accepted for some fraction of housing and food (and the minimum housing is sufficient to be covered 100% by UBI). Then cover the spread through taxing the corporations who wish to do business in that state. If the greedy Private-Equity owned corporation wants to jack up the rent, they can get their UBI tax jacked up also. If they want to quit the state, they can sell their assets to a local resident who wants to build a small business being a property manager.
No, I do not think it will have as strong an inflationary effect as that because the money would come from increasing tax or reducing other expenditure so the net amount the government is injecting into the economy (less what it takes out by way of tax) would not change.
...in America. There are countries that actually fight the oligarchs and tax them until the wealth inequality becomes lesser.
Of course there's no silver bullet and high progressive taxes for the mega-wealthy do have other negative effects. Like people being less motivated to strive. Less capital to invest and less competitive companies born.
But billionaires paying less taxes than the guy sweeping floors at the local mall is absurd. Once you reach a certain threshold of wealth, your taxes actually start going down.
There is actually no sense to put high taxes on ultra wealthy people. They have all means to avoid payment of income/profit taxes at all, no matter of the current tax rate.
That's why poor people pay the highest percentage of their income: they have no choice, no ways to do tax evasion.
US taxes incomes of their citizens globally, so, no matter where you reside, you're still subject to US tax legislation. The only way to get away from it is to renounciate US citizenship, which I imagine the rich may not be ready to do.
And so we arrive at the old insight that the fight against inequality needs to be global.
But I think you underestimate the possibilities. You can just design the law to make taxation a prerequisite for doing business. That's what the EU is (trying to) do, and it seems to work well.
Doing business in the EU and the US is a lot more profitable than not doing business there, even if you pay taxes. That's kind of the point.
> That's why poor people pay the highest percentage of their income
The key word here is income. “Wealth” and “income” tend to be conflated by ostensibly intelligent people who should know better. If I’m granted a million dollars in stock but draw a $20K salary, I’m “wealthy” but not “paying my fair share” because I’ve hardly earned any income for the year.
In fact, note how some European countries tax wealth from pretty low amounts: Sometimes under a million euros worth.Often around 2% of wealth after you get to 2 or 3 million, in practice making self-funded early retirement almost unheard of. Those wealth taxes raise more money from professionals that save instead of spend than from anyone rich enough to seem like an oligarch.
This is what everyone forgets when they label anyone against a wealth tax as “temporarily embarrassed billionaires.” Even if the government could convert 100% of a billionaire’s wealth into cash (they can’t) and confiscated it all, great, what are you going to do for revenue next year?
Taxes always START by targeting the wealthy but have this funny habit of applying to more and more people as time goes on. The US income tax was a whopping 1% percent until you made the equivalent of $400K. How’d that work out?
And yet they just voted to do the opposite. It’s not universal income that’s the solution, it’s breaking apart the monopolistic legislation that allows certain companies strangleholds on the markets. M&A shouldn’t be allowed if 65% of the majority of the market is owned by those two companies. Individuals with wealth should be capped and any excess should be used for low-income development programs.
We built a world for higher level thinking but ever since 2010, we’ve been failing to meet that standard.
one idea I've been toying with is to give municipalities ability to be hostile to corporations. for instance, levy a hefty tax on the wealth that is extracted from the community and paid to shareholders.
Of course I'm sure there are a million laws against this at the state or federal level, but citizens could still band together to make them comply or else run them out of town. ie. the police could agree to stop responding to McDonalds, or courts could allow trial by jury for eviction cases, and simply have the jurors find them not guilty (for the case of corporate landlords). These would be elements of last resort. The first resort would be to require corporate owners to pay a lot more to do business. A second line would be to rescind a lot of the "tax cuts" given to companies to build there. Just say sorry, this is an emergency and we cannot afford to give you the cuts anymore.
It would be dangerous, no doubt, and ripe for abuse. But it's a tool that could be used at the local level to provide relief. Ultimately, I think certain sectors should be forbidden for corporations to operate, such as restaurants and landlording. These are entry-level small business opportunities for normal people to get involved in, and they do not deserve to be pushed out by wealthy corporations.
Arts have another problem. Although I’m not even sure if it is a problem.
Lots and lots of people can create arts. In old era when people would just gather together and sing. Nobody would make a living off that. Very very few people were making a living by performing to nobility.
Modern recording industry with specialized instruments distorted this by allowing more talented people make a living. Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. On one hand more people could make a living, on the other hand much much less people were creating arts.
Nowadays it feels like we’re returning back to the natural flow. More people are creating arts since modern instruments are widely accessible. But fewer people can make a living.
Overall, I’d say more people creating arts is preferable outcome. And best art is created for the sake of it as a hobby.
Afaik, it is opposite. You coulf live off being musician, because people liked music. Bars and such paid live music, weddings, funerals, middle class birthsdays too.
Had any of those pre-recording entertainers been even remotely close to making a living off it? Outside of apex apex courts?
I guess busking has existed in many societies, but that's hardly making a living, and certainly not middle class.
Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. Perhaps community contribution involving a little side income, but chances are, in pre-recording days, not even that. Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band.
(it's funny how middle class is often portaied as a modern achievement, when the past is so full of examples of population that isn't the ruling elite, but economically still far above another layer of dropouts that would just move from opportunity to opportunity until an early death, at least unless they end up at some form of monastery)
They lived from it, full stop. It was middle class sort of occupation. You was not rich nor poor, you was respected but not a leader.
> Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals.
These were definitely professionals and these events were seen as important. Even if you was poor, you threw money on it. People in the past had ears just like we do. The amateur singing after 5th beer is fun for singers, but not fun for anyone else.
> Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band.
They had plenty of opportunities, we did not invented fun. All generations before us had fun. Socializing and drinking would be the easy straightforward one. Listening to a professional band as you drink and chat.
> You could live off being musician, because people liked music
I like how you're turning the article around a bit. So many voices you hear these days are saying thing like, "My father was a [x]. I've been an [x] all my life. Since [y] it's been harder than ever to make a living. I've always looked up to successful [x]s as more able or refined in some way, but now I have stratification on the brain and I start to think that those [x]s are taking too big a piece of the pie, and they should give me some."
If you approached a club owner in 1960 and said "Look, you don't have to hire a band. I'll set you up with one of those open reel mag tape gizmos and you can spend $300 on a tape library and spend hours nursing it." They'd look at you and reply "That's a crazy joke. I'll hire a band."
Then in 1990 the club owner doesn't even participate in the music, and expects the bartender to keep the CD/cassette deck loaded. Or they play the radio. In 1960 that would result in jibes about the club owner promoting the radio station. In 1990 it just happens and goes unnoticed.
The problem is there has never really been a mass expectation of original live music in all these drinking-places. There has only been a social demand that music be present, which can be fulfilled in so many other ways now. It's sad that it can be stated in such a simple way that is an assault to the ego.
But it probably helps if you can allude to society changing in undesirable ways despite your best efforts, class struggles, or bad government.
I’m talking pre industrial society. You’d have your neighbors singing at funeral or weddings. Unless you’re nobility of course. But that’s a tiny portion of society.
Only problem is that it requires totalitarian world government to do it. There is that thing called competition. Societies where people aren't pushed to work by fear of hunger, homelessness, and social exclusion, will very quickly lose out and fall apart. Perhaps this is why universal basic income doesn't exist. I mean, Soviet Union was very close to having it: there was no unemployment and if you were fine living on the base salary you could do nothing on your job and as long as you didn't come there drunk or disseminated anti-Soviet jokes, you'd be fine. See where it ended up.
Wouldn't that argument predict that the united states and most of Europe should collapse any second now? Countries where failure to find work leads to an actual threat of hunger are mostly very poor and corrupt developing nations.
Indeed this is the big reason of why economic growth rates in rich countries and especially those of them with low inequality, is slower. Because the primary factor that pushes people to work, is much weaker. It's not the only reason (another big reason is that poorer countries are playing a catch-up adopting technology invented by rich ones which is always easier than inventing it first), but yes, one of the big reasons.
I don't think there is any evidence that people are motivated to work because of the threat of starvation.
The most economically productive nations on the planet are well outside any risk of starvation, by a huge margin. This line of thinking is not a part of serious economic theory, it just comes from an extremely primitive high school level understanding of economics.
That is what you would think. Yet scandinavian countries which many US observers would (wrongly) call "socialist" countries fare quite well, while the US is currently falling apart in a fractal fashion where even the big issues have smaller issues attached to them.
It is maybe time for people like you to realize that the current crisis in the US is a direct result of this zero-sum worldview, where you think you can only win if someone else loses. Some turned that around and infer someone else losing will make them win, which is where a lot of the worse-than-soviet cruelty in US society comes from. Where producing win-win outcomes should be prefered, part of the US seems to be craving for lose-lose.
It is hard for the fish to perceive the nature of the water they have been swimming in their whole lives, but trust me: from an European standpoint the frequency soviet-style stories emerging from the US is rising.
People don’t call ambulances because they’re afraid of the cost, they die in the back of rideshares or sit bleeding out waiting for someone to Google the cheapest ER.
People drink poisoned water in one of the richest countries in the world, not as a one-time scandal but as a structural outcome, in Flint, in Jackson, in places the cameras moved on from.
Housing is a market, not a right, and so entire cities now feature tent villages under highways while luxury units sit empty, protected not by need but by capital.
In parts of Louisiana, California and Iowa, the air you breathe and the water you touch can kill you, but only if you’re poor enough or Black or unlucky enough to live near a chemical plant, a battery smelter, a lake no one bothers to save. In these sacrifice zones, life expectancy drops like it’s wartime. In urban centres people film others burning alive on the subway (NYC) and call it content.
There are cemeteries of Black Americans being paved over for parking garages, with courts hesitating to intervene. These aren’t edge cases—they’re the shape of the thing. This is not the freedom that was promised. This is the bureaucracy of cruelty operating not as failure, but as design. And the worst part is: many still think this is the price of success.
No because the whole first world has protections against starvation and homelessness, while social exclusion is usually for social behaviors rather than not working. However, what does drive people to be productive in those countries is the unbounded upward mobility offered by doing productive work. People strive to be richer than each other in a virtuous cycle that has the side effect of benefiting everyone. People, especially men, love and often need to be better than their peers to attract better partners, and that's a powerful driving force for many. For others, it's just feeling successful or gaining the power to by what you want. You can't do that if you're not rewarded for higher performance than your competitors (socialism).
Homelessness in the west is mostly not because people can't afford a house but because they'd rather spend their money on other things (drugs) or don't want a house at any price, or can't avoid losing their house because of their behavior.
> Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.
It's pretty easy to justify morally. I mean at least as easy as any other welfare.
The net payments for UBI plus (income) taxes don't have to look to different from what many countries already do today. It's just the accounting that looks a bit different.
UBI means giving money to people, which means that money has velocity because it would be promptly spent.
We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation. Wages didn’t significantly increase to match, so in my country anyway people feel that the cost if living is significantly worse post-Covid.
Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.
This is what most people miss when they criticise UBI - for most people, it will be immediately spent, taxed, and put back into the economy. As long as the velocity is there, it's not an entirely bad idea as long as inflation can be kept under control.
I can only speak for the UK.
But given the fiscal headroom for the foreseeable, I don’t see where else it would come from? If they don’t have it, they either borrow or print it?
For any meaningful scheme, you would be talking about hundreds of billions.
They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc) or they consume which pays for all the poor peoples salaries
The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem
> They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc)
That's wealth that should be taxed.
> The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem
Don't let the uneducated messenger distract from UBI itself though. Proposed seriously, it's about reducing asset values and high incomes to redistribute that value to everyone who isn't losing more value than the UBI. The real argument is that it would mean short-term economic costs to build a more robust system with a bigger pool of people with the safety net and risk appetite to start/join companies.
> Approximately no one has vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck
Yeah, I also like to be pedantically literal when I don't have good counter arguments. I feel your pain, brother.
You can replace my "vaults of gold" analogy for propety, yachts, real estate, company shares, etc. Whatever someone holds in their own name that constitutes wealth above a certain threshold should be taxed.
> So you are suggesting to raise the cost of capital for companies?
Corporations also should contribute to society, as they also benefit from the common infrastructure.
There's this pervasive idea that "if we tax the rich they will stop investing in companies and us filthy peasants will be out of jobs" which is the bullshit of the ages. If there is demand for goods and services, there will be those that supply them.
Basically, the people a tax is nominally levied upon don't necessarily bear the economic burden, and vice versa.
A silly example: do you think it makes a difference if your employer transfers your whole gross income into your account and you pay income taxes, or whether your employer pays the income tax first, and then transfers you the net amount?
Of course, if you want to do business in country X, you are subject to the laws of that country X.
But otherwise, you can leave that country and settle down elsewhere and do your business there. No matter how 'actually effective' that regulation is. (Unless you do an 'East Germany' and don't allow people to leave.)
As you've figured out, you can't sustainably raise a lot of money via printing. At least not in real terms when adjusted for inflation. (Of course, in nominal terms you can raise arbitrary amounts by printing.)
Now how to finance a UBI is a good question.
A land value tax would be an interesting choice. Especially since a UBI will probably lead to higher rents.
If you have an inflation targeting central bank, velocity of money doesn't really matter.
If velocity speeds up and inflation goes up, the central bank will remove money from circulation to hit their target. If velocity goes down, the central bank will inject money into circulation.
The fiscal multiplier is zero.
(Or rather, any deviation of the fiscal multiplier from zero is evidence of an incompetent central bank.)
> We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation.
No. The high inflation was a result of Fed policy, not fiscal tricks like furlough payments.
> Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.
You are right that UBI can lead to higher relative prices for rent.
And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.
(UBI would not lead to inflation, and would not necessarily lead to higher absolute rents. The overall level of inflation is something an inflation targeting central bank, like the Fed or ECB, controls.)
That doesn't make a difference to how land value tax works. If a landlord doesn't own the land, he leases it from someone who does.
But to make LVT simpler to understand (and economically equivalent): you can imagine the government owns all the land, and rents out plots for eg 20 years at a time to the highest bidder. To help people plan better, the auctions can be done 5 years ahead of time. So leases for 2036 - 2056 will be auctioned off in 2031.
You can stagger the auctions, so a few leases get auctioned off every week.
If we step away from the realms of imagination, then in the UK typical leaseholds are legally valid for about 100 years, with some going up to 999 years. Of course, many leaseholders - the rent seeking Landlords - may come and go within those lease cycles.
Or are you proposing State confiscation and management of the land? I can’t quite tell from your post.
I was describing a simpler system for implementing UBI. You are right that I left out how to transition to that system.
For example, you could do more or less the same thing that the UK did to abolish slavery: buy out all the existing land owners / lease holders.
I suggested 20 years as a reasonable time frame for leases. In principle, 100 years might would also work. 999 years is probably far too long.
Now, instead of auctioning off the leases, you can also have individuals officially owning the land, but instead you tax them a certain fraction of the market value of the land every year. Economically that's equivalent.
A 999 year lease is basically economically the same as owning the land. So you should more or less treat it the same.
By morally, he might mean it creates a moral hazard. I know that when I was poor, I worked only the minimum to support myself. If I had UBI that covered those costs, I certainly wouldn't have worked, so there'd be less productivity in the economy.
Well, exactly that problem already exists qualitatively with current tax and welfare systems.
Whether UBI would make the problem quantitatively worse depends on the exact design of the UBI system you have in mind and the current system you want to compare it with.
People that have inherited capital have income without merit. Is that immoral? Randomly being born in a rich nation to an advantaged life. Is that immoral too?
Socialism didn't fail because of a UBI, which it never attempted; it failed because it couldn't calculate prices accurately, because it was bad at finding and processing information, political economy, and deeper computational complexity reasons.
UBIs don't have these problems (or, rather, they'd have some of them in different ways, but in ways that are closer to market capitalism than socialism).
That was the trait of planned economy, not socialized ownership of the means of production.
You could theoretically have market socialism, where the only difference from market capitalism would be the lack of distinction between workers and owners. Gig economy would be its kryptonite, though: if allow it you are back to exploiting workers, if you ban it you will also ban a whole lot of actual self-employed professionals.
We don't need theoretical market socialism; we had actual existing Yugoslavia.
Although it functioned better than centrally planned socialism, it still had lots of issues related to prices, particularly of capital. Who provides capital for enterprise? In practice, the state. And this ran into the same political economy issues with centrally planned economies. What happens when a company is about to go under? Unemployment is bad, so the worker-owned company gets a bail out. Who can start a firm? Well, better make sure your company satisfies the objectives of your local government.
I made the socialism-remark because of the post before blaming everything on economic inequality. While that can lead to problems, I don't think it's necessarily a problem in itself or a sign of injustice.
You're correct in that UBI is something different than socialism.
Ironically, I suspect a UBI not only can coexist with inequality but might substantially increase it (not a bad thing in my book). The vast majority of Americans already have incomes above a UBI level, especially when current government benefits are accounted for. But post UBI, a substantial minority would exit entirely from market labor, while another substantial minority would be more willing to take career and entrepreneurial risks that are on average income increasing. There are also some very favorable aspects of it for marginal tax rates, which would encourage workers to earn more income.
The top 1% of people controlling more wealth and resources than the bottom 50% is mortally justifiable?
It’s funny whenever there is a comment like “hey, maybe we shouldn’t let individual people get so rich they can basically become thier own country.” Always get called socialists/communists. You can be capitalist while also having some care and protection for the little people.
'A' being morally unjustifiable (by some metric), doesn't mean that 'B' is morally justifiable.
If there was a button that I could press that would double the wealth of the 99% of people and quadruple the wealth of the top 1%, I would keep pressing it, even though it technically makes inequality worse and worse every time.
It would be morally reprehensible not to press that button.
EDIT: just be clear, I am talking about real (i.e. inflation adjusted) wealth. I am not talking about how many zeros we add to all dollar amounts.
So I am talking about the number of houses and shoes and cars we have, and the amount of ice cream and education we can enjoy.
If you could press another button which would shift some of the obscene wealth from the ultra-rich to people living at the margins of society, you should also be mashing that button over and over.
It would be morally reprehensible to push that button, because the button would also cause prices of everything to inflate by the average increase (more than 2x). So you’d be making the 1% richer, relative to inflation, and the 99% poorer.
Ironically, our society is basically continuously pushing that button today, much to the glee of the 1%.
UBI is not about "care". That's just the typical left-wing compassion framing.
I don't want to abolish all taxes, I'm not a libertarian. But giving away the money you took from somebody else needs a justification (for example to pay for the roads). And I find "income redistribution" for the sake of it not an acceptable goal.
Because people don't treat it as a "safety net" and instead use it as a "living net".
There is some contingent of people who will just not participate in society no matter what. So the question becomes where do we set the bar - the lower this bar, the smaller that contingent.
If you want to provide truly livable UBI, it’d be even bigger than socialism. The working people would have to be taxed through the nose. And necessary professions like trash car drivers should be paid a crapton.
Let's have a look at Scandinavia or Germany. They have reasonably generous welfare systems, but they are means tested. So for the sake of argument, declare them to be 'truly livable'. Especially by global standards.
Now I claim, that you can get pretty much the same net payments (of means tested welfare - taxes) that these countries have today with a system of (UBI - taxes). Basically, at the moment both taxes and welfare are means tested; you could move to UBI by moving all the means testing from welfare to taxes.
Because net payments would be pretty much the same, all incentives would stay pretty much the same as today.
Of course, if you want to go much beyond what Germany and Scandinavia are already paying, you'd need even higher taxes or a stranger economy.
Btw, per capita the US is one of the world leaders of social welfare spending. They spend more than France. (Mostly because while France spends a higher proportion of GDP, American GDP per capita is much higher.)
> Because net payments would be pretty much the same, all incentives would stay pretty much the same as today.
Nope, in Germany you are required to work. If you can't find a job, you still have to try (and prove that), you need to stay at home / be available (and notify the state about your vacation or you might be punished by receiving less welfare) and of course you have to use up all money or wealth you have and state, in written, that you have no other sources of wealth.
The sell-possessions-before-welfare is very very different from taxing.
With taxes, even crazy high, you can still accumulate wealth. Taxes slow you down, but it’s still possible.
With net-worth-ceiling to receive welfare, you’re forced you cannot accumulate wealth on welfare. And your previous wealth is gone before you get to earn welfare.
Got a nice house and BMW and decided to slow it down and live on welfare? Or, more likely, work under table and collect welfare too? Good luck with that :)
And Scandinavian or German systems are in pretty bad shape. Both hard to finance (see Denmark raising pension age to 70) and lots of people getting thrown out of the system for minuscule reasons (German pensioners collecting deposit bottles to make ends meet is not unheard of).
In euro style systems very few people receive welfare at a given time. Many people may receive it at some point in lifetime, but not at the same time. UBI would completely change the picture.
On top of that, salaries for basic jobs would need to get much higher to incentivize people to work. Thus UBI would have to be much higher as current welfare. Unless you expect citizens to live on UBI but keep services cheap with cheap migrant labor.
> On top of that, salaries for basic jobs would need to get much higher to incentivize people to work.
Not true. The 'B' in UBI means 'Basic'. UBI wil pay your rent, utilities, and food, but not much else. Now, there are some people that are willing to just exist on only the bare minimum, but that's a significant minority. The vast majority of people want more. There will be plenty of people willing to do minimum wage jobs to top-up their UBI so they can afford extras like holidays, nicer phones, meals out, etc...
The main difference would be that the security of UBI would give them more power to distch a job if they were being abused in some way, rather than being so desperate that even if their employer is abusing them they are forced to take it because they need the job to survive.
I feel like too much discussion on UBI is poisoned by the idea that the vast majority of people are bone idle and are willing to just sit at home doing nothing and just existing with the bare minumum required to live. It's just not true
It's not that the majority of people would prefer to be idle, but that right now we manage to make some really uncomfortable jobs pay very little. It's not that you'd not find people to, say, work concessions at the movie theater. It's that the pay for harvesting a whole lot of crops, or do roofing work, will not work out . It's the same reason few Americans do those jobs in the US already.
Why would the working people necessarily need to be taxed? You could pay for UBI with taxes on investment, or wealth, or luxury taxes, or other things besides labor.
Working people in general. Those who keep producing and not sit on their asses enjoying UBI. You can tax incomes, wealth, whatever. Either way it’d be taxing those who want more than UBI. And you’ll need to tax them a lot.
There’s no way taxing super-rich-only would cover fair UBI. It’ll have to be much much wider. Unless 99% of jobs would become automatized.
> actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living
Until they are dying on the streets, they are actually make a living.
If they cannot make a decent living with their low income - UBI wouldn't help. UBI is a safety net, a minimal salary payment. You are never going to have a decent life on minimal salary.
Capitalism seems to be an optimizer for
this type of “efficiency”. How far can we squeeze people for their labour before they are dying in the streets or rioting?
I played in a cover band with some well-paid engineers. We enjoyed music enough to consider going full time, but even with four-figure bookings were were barely taking home minimum wage. We looked into getting a manager to find us more high-paying gigs, but management fees and travel costs eat up the gains.
For a band, it's virtually impossible to find work outside the weekend. If a region had a few restaurants that were known for year round "live music Mondays", "live music lunches", etc, it would increase the number of hours that a musician could work during the week, and make full time performance viable for more musicians. Of course, people would also need to support these performances by patronizing the venues that host them.
But until a working musician can fill their weekday calendar with paying gigs without excessive travel/lodging costs, you'll continue to see talented musicians drop out and do something else.
Even if you play gigs 7 days a week on Broadway (Nashville), all year round, you'd make a pitiful salary - compared to the work put in.
And you'd be locked to only playing certain types of music (country, classic rock, singer songwriter), doing multiple gigs a day.
Truth be told, most musicians would be better off by picking a job, any job really, and treating music as a side hustle. And that really pains me, as I started out as a musician.
If you're going to make a living off music, it's going to be a never-ending marathon of hustles and uncertainty. Cover bands, church bands, wedding bands, session work, lessons, roadie work, instrument tech, and half (of not two thirds) of that work is based on sheer luck, depending on what people you cross paths with.
I've come to the perhaps grim conclusion that the world doesn't value music enough. It seems to me that most artists are making music because they love to do it themselves. It's essentially a form of play. Wanting a career out of it implies sacrifice in the way we currently have our world setup.
The current world we live in doesn't care enough about creativity. I find it a bleak thought, but here I am. Feel free to try to talk me out of it, because it does feel kind of depressing. Or feel free to validate it. I want to see the world for what it is, not what I like it to be.
The music industry is a multi-billion dollar market and growing, so it's not really fair to say that the world doesn't value it.
The problem is that it's a bit of a winner takes all market. It's comparable to professional sports.
Everyone loves soccer, but 99.9% of people won't get paid to play it. That doesn't mean it isn't valued - some of the highest paid people in the world are soccer players!
Think of it: a lot of people listen to music as a background of some kind. That means they don't want to keep going "Ugh, this one sucks, next, next, next..."
But, there's thousands of absolutely excellent songs that are time tested. You can play top 100 from the 80s and not be annoyed most of the time.
But ever time somebody plays Prince or Duran Duran is a time they're not playing the song you just released.
People do care whether they realize it or not. They will always care. They have to if they consume any creative media at all. Our government and economic system on the other hand might not care to offer any encouragement other than “good luck, you’ll need it. I hope you’re good at marketing.” The article states there are more people making music than ever. I agree. I became overwhelmed by the sheer amount of output coming out by bedroom musicians. The list of bands playing near me weekly is huge. Whether it’s more quality on top of quantity is another discussion.
> I've come to the perhaps grim conclusion that the world doesn't value music enough.
What do you mean by not valuing music? Should we allocate more of our paycheck to music? Or should we talk more about how great music is?
> It seems to me that most artists are making music because they love to do it themselves.
I mean, art is ultimately an expression of emotions. If you don't love creating the art you create, unless you have another deep emotional reason to create it, it's going to affect the result quite significantly.
> The current world we live in doesn't care enough about creativity.
This is just human nature though I think. Most people want the fuzzy feeling of something familiar. And then you have those who go to large events for the shared experience of going, rather than what's actually performed.
Personally I love going to smaller venues (<300 people) where the cost of admission is such that I feel I can take the risk of something unknown and outside my comfort zone. But I also realize I'm weird that way.
They sort of do (or as much as they ever have), but I think that the modern world gives access to national and global stars via prerecorded entertainment and the little guys can't make a living like they used to.
That's a drag in many ways because local circuits and regional music are where a lot of new styles and bands came from, and the wealth is more concentrated now into fewer people.
I've noticed post-covid there are a lot more weeknight gigs. I think it was accepted during the recovery period as everyone tried to make up for lost time, but so far it hasn't faded out. I hope it continues.
The lede of this article, about Rollie Pemberton, is about a "360" deal where the label gets a cut of all revenue related to the act (Pemberton's "Cadence Weapon"). Unusually, in Pemberton's case, it appears that most of his revenue came in from prizes and grants, not from recording sales or touring. The structure of his deal thus made Upper Class Records an outsized return. The deal seems pretty exploitative.
The problem with this as a framing device is that it doesn't describe very many working musical acts. 360 deals are probably generally gross? But Pemberton's situation is weird. In most cases, labels are in fact going to lose money from midlist acts.
The more you look at these kinds of businesses the more striking the pattern is. It's true of most media, it's true of startups, it's true for pharmaceuticals. The winners pay for the losers; in fact, the winners are usually the only thing that matter, the high-order bit of returns.
What's challenging about this is that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. The package offered to a midlist act might in fact be a loss leader; incentive to improve dealflow and optionality for the label, to get a better shot at the tiny number of acts whose returns will keep the label afloat. There may not be much more to offer to acts that aren't going to generate revenue.
David Lowery (a mathematician and the founder/lead vocalist of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker) had an article about this years ago:
It's worth a read (though things have probably changed in a number of ways since then). It's an interesting counterpoint to the automatic cite to Albini's piece that comes up in these discussions. Not that you should have sympathy for labels, just it's useful to have a clearer idea of what the deal was. The classic label deal with a mid-sized advance that never recouped (and which the labels never came back looking for when it didn't) was basically the driver for "middle-class" rock lifestyles; it's dead now.
> In most cases, labels are in fact going to lose money from midlist acts.
This is almost certainly the case. The music business is the economics of superstars. see: Rosen, Sherwin. “The Economics of Superstars.” The American Economic Review 71, no. 5 (1981): 845–58.
Small personal difference translate into enormous differences in earnings. The income curve has only small area for middle incomes. Either you are below middle, or you quickly get into upper middle class or higher incomes. It's not a market failure but a predictable dynamics of this particular field.
Artists low pay is driven by two things:
First, an oversupply of talent willing to work below a living wage keeps incomes low.
Second, promotion and marketing are the primary drivers of an artist's financial outome, leading to uneven deals where labels handle the heavy lifting and deserve larger piece of the cake. Once an artist's career reaches a certain scale, their earnings can grow to outweigh their direct creative input.
This is a very sensible analysis of the problems.
On the one hand, people tend to ignore how many bands fail, and how much money and effort is spent on the process.
On the other hand, labels have a deathgrip on the industry, using payola and other practices that they can afford thanks to their financial (and accounting) abilities.
One thing that could help is transparency, but in a way the lack of transparency is a good part of what keeps the system going.
Most people would not agree if they knew how little they would keep if they were successful; "what do you mean I have to pay for the losers?".
They would just want to pay for what was necessary for their success, ignoring every expense that didn't work as a "stupid label decision".
The thing is that nobody has a true recipe for success, you can just get reasonable estimates on your bets, but each bet will always be a biased coin flip.
I assumed the article would be about orchestral musicians (for whom there is a high, and increasing skill threshold) or session musicians (whose work is increasingly being replaced by computer synthesis). Instead, we get a very long narrative about a rapper who is still struggling to "make it" as a recording artist. In the era of sound recordings (which began well over a century ago) there is little incentive for the consumer to choose one with middling appeal over the most popular options. This makes the task of becoming a star, but on a small scale, a difficult one. Instead, a prospective "middle-class musician" must find a niche of some kind, perhaps by focusing on the local market. For example, a busker could potentially make more (than his cited $250k in recording revenue) over a period of 9 years with sufficient dedication.
~15-20 years ago, the popular wisdom was that we were entering the age of the long tail, where the open distribution opportunities of the internet combined with discovery technology would mean that it'd be easier for many artists to "make it" to a point where they had 10k fans. What happened?
We decimated recordings as a revenue stream (and literal decimation might be wildly generous, given that stream payouts frequently never add up to a single sale for many artists). We let people peddle the lie that artists can just find some other revenue source like merchandising or another job or anything else rather than paying for the thing people ostensibly value.
Minor league success was never an easy proposition but we had a chance to give it better margins. And we let Spotify and others eat those, and let too many people tell comforting lies to consumers along the way.
And without a major cultural shift, we will do the same thing for everyone eventually.
I think "what happened" was that Anderson's long tail theory was
a) just a theory not a proven thing and
b) based on flawed assumptions that were quickly disproven. See the 2008 paper "Should You Invest in the Long Tail?" finding that consumers don't like niche products and the bottom 80% sold $0, contrary to the theory's prediction.
Who is this "we" you speak of? There is no society. There is only individuals making decisions on how to spend their money, time, and comfort.
If hundreds of millions of people decide to use Spotify and Youtube to obtain their music, and if that means most artists are shafted in the process, no secret organization enacted some conspiracy to achieve that. Instead, technology enabled a new form of consumption, and producers faced a new level of competition.
Most musicians who can make it now are only middle class, with a handful of superstars and a huge legion of poor artists.
I’ve played many gigs for $20-100, which is once a month or week and tough work relative to typing some code from home. I played for 25 mins in front of 1000 people and spent 8+ hours total all-in to make 200 bucks. Way harder money than coding.
Really, think back through history. Musicians were needed for dance, parties, all occasions. Now hit play on your phone connected to a speaker, GG musicians.
> I played for 25 mins in front of 1000 people and spent 8+ hours total all-in to make 200 bucks.
Perhaps a bit cynical, but my thinking has long been that if I see a band that's playing in a venue that takes like 100-200 people or so[1], they're doing it out of passion. And that immediately makes it more interesting for me to go.
I've had lots of great experiences that way, including for bands that's normally way outside my comfort zone. And as the price of admission is fairly low, if it somehow is a miss it's not a big deal.
Now, as I know they're making little or no money on the gig itself, I usually end up buying some merch.
[1]: I'm in Norway, we don't have a ton of large venues.
> Really, think back through history. Musicians were needed for dance, parties, all occasions. Now hit play on your phone connected to a speaker, GG musicians.
John Philip Sousa had the right opinion on recorded music.
On the other hand busking in a street (which I regard as open source music, donations accepted) makes way more money than releasing an open source project and having tens of thousands use it daily.
Comparable, though very much not equal. Unless you came specifically to listen to music (e.g. many concerts), the music plays a technical role: dance music, movie soundtrack, restaurant / bar background music. For that, a good recording is adequate or even superior.
This reminds me of the guy that told me he didn’t need to travel anywhere because the internet exists and people already write about it and leave pictures. This was in the 90s. Not the same obviously. And I agree that crowds can be super annoying sometimes. And it obviously depends on the context of the type of music created, etc. But in your nicely controlled environment you can miss out on spontaneity or energy that can’t be replaced.
What has been developing for awhile is that musicians are coming from richer backgrounds on average. They can dally around trying their hand as a working musician and can fail and not be destitute. The age of a working class or lower class musician is waining.
Same sh it is happening with basketball. More nepo babies than ballers from the streets rising up the ranks homie. And person embodies dis shit more than Bronny James.
To go back in time before university endowments for intellectual work you'd find yourself in a monestary, with endowments from the nobility for intellectual work (copying texts and making those great illuminated manuscripts). As far as I know the model you're describing did apply to ancient Greece.
Want to work for the most prestigious fashion brands? You start with unpaid (or very low pay) internships in some of the most expensive cities in the world. Same goes for record labels. Art. Literature publishing.
And these days, some of the above will filter out applicants that don't have big enough social media accounts.
Successful musicians have way more in common with actors than any other profession. It’s about connections, wealth, and nepotism over anything else.
Let’s say your child wants to be an actor. One way to make this happen is to be a successful actor yourself - require your children to be cast in the film in return for you starring. This is how famous acting families pushed their kids forwards, including Nicholas Cage (Coppola) and Jeff Bridges.
More relevant for HN is rich people. So you are tech rich and your kid wants to act. Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it. That is the way since movies began.
I suspect it is more likely that rich people will fund their actor-aspirant children more convention ways:
When they are younger they could pay for acting classes, acting camps and help them get into local productions.
Out of school they pay for livings costs, education and any additional classes. Living in New York or LA and being able to concentrate on getting parts of training rather than having to make money would be a huge boast.
Maybe at the next stage getting their kid an agent or manager who has contacts and experience to get their kid the roles.
Perhaps you mean throwing a few thousand dollars at student-level films to ensure their kid gets an important part. I guess maybe some will write 6 (7?) figure cheques to get their kid a part, but that probably doesn't happen often.
> Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it.
The customer of such a movie isn’t the audience but the wealthy patron sponsoring the movie. I suspect this self-promotion motivation is a large reason why so many movies are so bad.
So many movies are bad because their customer is, intellectually, the minimum common denominator. It's a miracle that movie plots don't consist entirely of grunts, chest pumping and farts, but we are getting closer and closer every year. Most block-busters have an awful lot of primal violence in them, but I bet you can't remember when was the last time any of them had any accurate, actual science.
As a film maker who studied film, the reason why so many movies are so bad are manyfold:
- making movies is hard. A lot of things that require years to master need to go right. A *ton* of tech is involved.
- making movies is expensive. Money alone won't make you a good movie, but many productions are so on the edge that some choice they had to make for monetary reason will cause the bad.
- making movies is complex, that means making a masterful one requires multiple botched attempts and experiences by all people involved. These botched attempts are also what you see.
I can't stress enough how hard making a movie is, even in comparison to complicated tech problems, programming etc.
Yes and the fact that you grew up with e.g. actor parents means you know a lot about acting and the world it takes place in and the language used within it already, just like the kid of a farmer will know more than the average person about farm animals, tractors and crop.
On top of that come the contacts and being rich. But the contacts are not a thing other people couldn't make as well, especially if they are good. One of the somewhat hidden benefits of higher education are the contacts you will make. Maybe you're not rich and your parents are roofers while you want to become an actor, but if you're good and well connected you might benefit from other peoples connections. This is how I started to make my living in a foreign country with two parents without any shared background: There were people who had those contacts and I benefitted of them simply by being the one they chose because I am accurate, reliable, on time, knowledgeable, patient and good at what I do.
That has been the case for a very, very long time. Classical music is basically one big orgy of wealthy people. Musicians born into families of musicians that were well off. Same goes for other artistic pursuits such as painters etc.
I found very little actual insight in this article. I think musicians have been struggling for decades and the parents have known for at least as long to tell their kids to get a degree regardless of their talents. Schools like Berklee are… questionable at best. Lots off nepo babies just taking a few years to fuck about, basically.
Conservatory music culture is peculiar. Yes, lots of upper class parents want their children to take part in it, but it is not a good career economically speaking. (Unless you want to be a double-showoff and study medicine alongside classical piano, like one guy in my hometown did.) Especially classical musicians take a step down economical class-wise if they succeed. And this has been the case for most entertainer professions for a long time.
I've played with Berklee-trained musicians. It's a mixed bag. They won't turn you into a great musician against your will. This is true of any education. And you have to already be **** good when you apply in order to make full use of the opportunities that they offer.
Oddly enough Berklee is considered to be a jazz school, but the players from there who I consider to be real stand-outs (performing at an international level, or well on their way to doing so) have chosen to earn their livings outside of mainstream jazz.
Mainstream jazz really doesn't make money. Also, Berklee is also really strong in the broader field of "Commercial Music" which includes things like film scoring and pop-oriented genres.
The odds are long but some musicians make it work. Several of the Imagine Dragons band members attended Berklee, and then grinded for years playing cover songs and touring small clubs until they got a recording deal. Would they have succeeded at the same level without that Berklee education? Hard to say.
Part of the problem is that the barrier to entry is really low now. In the old days, you had to be relatively talented on your instrument, hone your skills for years playing clubs to gather an audience, and then a record label would finally give you a contract. Now you can download Logic and it will generate most of the music. You just sing along, autotune your vocals and you've got a tune that can be uploaded to Spotify, Apple Music, etc.
I just saw MonoNeon in concert. His albums are mediocre but I'm guessing he's making an ok living because he's extremely talented on bass. The place was sold out.
How many financially self-sustaining musicians should there be? Streaming has caused the number to fall, but recorded music before that likely made it fall as well.
Should we stop thinking about music as a job and start thinking about it as a hobbyist art form? Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting. It’s a fun form of self expression that people will do regardless of the economics, so maybe the problem was ever thinking you could make a profession out of it?
Anyone who has something they've done out of love but can't figure out how to monetize knows the problem with this: you are limited in the amount of time you can put into doing it, both into the actual doing and the pre-doing practice and study. That means less of your best work gets done. Maybe you never actually reach the point where any of your best work gets done.
There's lots of value in amateur engineering. What if we deprofessionalized engineering via making it difficult for anyone to make a living doing it? Some people would no doubt still continue to do it, to scratch their itches and exercise their minds. But they would spend less time doing it, less time sudying how to do it, more time doing whatever it takes to pay the bills and claw out some semblance of security. We certainly wouldn't fall into technical poverty immediately, and maybe we wouldn't miss what we don't quite invent / develop, but both the people who actually love it enough to pay attention and the professionals would know the difference between what isn't getting done.
(And in fact, the US is standing on the precipice of a FAFO event with research here, having just made it more difficult to make a living focusing on it.)
What happens to a field that can only be engaged as a dilettante, never as a committed investor?
This has happened to many past professions, and will continue to happen. Can one really make a career out of woodworking craftsmanship? Making custom furniture? Maybe a small number of people in the world can, but the rest just do woodworking as a hobby because it doesn’t pay the bills.
Software development will go this way, too, as we are all starting to learn.
The problem is people are ok with corporate, mass-produced slop—whether it be music, furniture, or (soon) software. Fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for human craftsman-produced product.
the difference is this: music is always changing, and this change is what defines the active cutting edge of the arts, vs the retro/copycat/tribute/covers schlock the masses are ok with. the schlock itself requires constant creativity vampirism and sublimation or I would say sublation of soul spirit and new ideas merely to keep afloat.
those responsible for advancement of musical boundaries rarely are recognized or rewarded in kind, at least since the dawn of the recorded music mafia.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
Hunter S. Thompson
I think now that AI is here, tech CEOs will do their best to make it happen. That is, if AI won't be a force multiplier in the end but simply replacing tech people.
The vitality of music (and probably the rest of the arts), has always depended on a symbiosis between professional and amateur musicians. Some things still need professionals, such as fielding a top level symphony orchestra. And high caliber teaching.
Among other things, I play large-ensemble jazz. Over the years, I've played in a number of bands, and the level of quality and variety achieved by players with professional training is a noticeable step above amateur players. The material that my current band plays is unplayable without training. About half of the band members have music degrees (many teach music in the public schools) and the other half are dedicated amateurs with past training like myself.
Other styles, like folk music, are essentially sustained by amateurs.
Some things can only be done by amateurs, or professionals who also have a musical hobby, such as playing experimental, obscure, or historical music. Amateur musicians also support the professional scene by attending performances, taking lessons, buying instruments (resulting in economies of scale), etc.
I intuitively agree with this perspective, even if I'm unsure about the consequences, and would probably need to think more deeply about them.
Once, when criticising the toxic effects of advertising, I got a response to the effect of 'but how will streamers be able to support themselves?!'. Which I was really struck by, because it presumes that streamers should be able to support themselves by streaming. Should they? Is this actually a desirable outcome? Yes, the financial viability probably leads to more streaming, but what about the quality of the overall streaming? And what about the opportunity cost when someone gives up their job and puts their labours into the business of streaming?
There will always be some level of cultural output, since there will always be passionate people. But has making the arts an industry (through an ever expanding artifice of 'intellectual property', and the ever expanding criminalisation of its subversion) actually led to better arts? Would this be a better or worse world if people built bridges in their day job and played rock gigs at night, solely for the love of it?
I'm not trying to do a Socratic dialogue here, I genuinely don't know. But I suspect the answer is much more nuanced than 'more money = better art', and I am sceptical of certain legal or economic distortions based on that assumption (e.g. life + 70 copyright terms, surveillance advertising, surveillance DRM software, billion-dollar industries that subsist solely on 'IP', fines and prison terms for unauthorised sharing, or the reversing or bypassing of DRM, etc).
The question we should be asking, as consumers of music, is how many musical options do we want?
If musicians can't make a living, then both the quantity and quality of our musical options go down. Yes, hobbyists will always make music for themselves, but hobbyists won't necessarily record music for us or tour around the country for us to see in live venues. The issue is not that musicians inherently deserve to make a living; the issue is, what kind of musical market is available for consumers?
That's not contrary to what I said, which was "hobbyists won't necessarily [emphasis added] record music for us". And of course you didn't respond to my point about touring.
In any case, the music and recordings of hobbyists are likely to be inferior to the music and recordings of professionals, because in general, professionals are better than hobbyists at almost everything, music being only one example.
> A lot of the music I listen to is from youtubers with a handful of views.
If that's the future you want, then I guess you're in luck.
I'm not sure if they're more popular on other media platforms, but I've really enjoyed quite a few songs by the Japanese band Ribettowns and their YouTube account has less than 1K subscribers
I find this very interesting. None of those artists were bad by any means. But the sound quality is really bad, and none of then are even close to something like Goat Rodeo [1] which has over a million views precisely because of the exceptional performances and the high quality video and audio. Why not just listen to that? I'm genuinely curious. I'm sure there could be a good reason. Maybe you know then personally or saw them at a memorable moment.I'd love to know what it is that draws you to those artists.
Sure, here's a sampling with a favorite from each. I'm a synth fan, some of these guys are good keyboard players and others are just really good with synths, as far as I know. Some of the handfuls are bigger than others.
There are tons of rappers and EDM DJs on Soundcloud (not YouTube) that have legitimately good music. They might not be good 5 years from now or even 1 year from now, but they are good now if you put the work into finding them. Seems like atleast in the DJ scene someone might be on top of the world fairly quickly even if they disappear soon after.
Streaming is only the next step of the ladder, the reality is that ever since recording was possible (then broadcasting, then the internet), music (and most of the arts for that matter) has increasing winner-take all effects, where a minuscule amount of artists reap huge gains, while the rest just scrape by.
Now, with AI, all signs seem to indicate that the industry will finally reset to what was the norm for hundreds of years : Artists would be supported on their craft by patrons and benefactors. Most didn't make it to be wealthy, but at least, they got to enjoy time in their craft.
Everyone should become an engineer. Then we can spend our whole lives working to build stuff. That way, we can prevent anyone from pursuing anything creative, beautiful, or transcendental.
Like, I see where you're going with this but music is one of those things that's actually the whole point of being alive. If all we ever do is do "useful" things ($$$) we lose our chance to actually live our lives.
i think you're reading something into my post that i didnt intend. i hate the "just learn to code"/"only STEM degrees are worthwhile" crowd.
we absolutely should be pursing things that are creative, beautiful, and transcendental. but.. should we expect the pursuit of the creative, beautiful, and transcendental to be a career? we should encourage everybody to do because it is inherently valuable instead of pursuing it because its a job.
We should not encourage everybody to pursue the arts. But a society that disregards the importance of the arts (one symptom of which is that the pursuit of the arts as a career/way of life is inviable) then the society as a whole will -- 100% absolutely guaranteed -- suffer as a result. The arts are the means by which the unconscious comes to consciousness. Music is a means by which the sublime, and of course even various mundane psycho-spiritual-emotional states -- become accessible for the vast majority of people who can not access said states without aid.
In the absence of that, neurosis is certain to flourish.
So, it is not an economic matter but a matter of the psychodynamics of society. For the sake of the health of the whole, some members of the whole must be able to bring in certain vibes, patterns, states of mind, ideas, etc. And without the ability to pursue that and only that skillset, they won't be able to succeed at that. And it is required for the functioning of the whole.
It's a bit akin to the way the entire body depends on the cells that process ATP. If you eliminate all cells that serve that role, the entire body dies, even though they are a miniscule aspect of the entire operation. That is where the animating spirit comes from.
Well sure, but he asked "should we expect the pursuit of the creative, beautiful, and transcendental to be a career?"
My answer is no not necessarily. One can pursue it in their free time. Whether it should be a career or not is honestly an invisible hand question (aka capitalism). I'm normally not pro invisible hand such as in the case of healthcare, but when it comes to stuff like this, I totally am.
It might be beneficial to have dedicated people to do this, but a lot can be accomplished by free time.
The US constitution says congress will pay for useful arts and sciences. It says this before paying for national defense fwiw. If career soldiers and scientists can exist with federal dollars, so should useful artists. Now to define useful art...
The "useful arts" mentioned in the US constitution refers to the works of artisans and craftsmen, such as textile manufacturers, instrument* makers, and people working in construction.
*Realizing this might be confusing in context. I meant e.g. navigational instruments
"whole point of being alive" is maybe exaggerating for something that most people are demonstrably uninterested in paying more than a very small fraction of their income to consume?
Many musicians teach others. Without them how will we learn one of the most beautiful / coolest things to ever exist?
I’ve tried learning from an app and it’s not the same as spending an hour with my guitar teacher. It’s not even close. I wish he were paid more given how talented he is and how hard he works.
I’m talking about the gigs where he gets paid in beer and the streaming where he makes pennies. But sure boss I’ll throw him some extra cash when he’s back from tour.
How many financially self-sustaining software developers should there be? AI code generation has caused the number to fall, but FOSS before that likely made it fall as well.
I can keep playing this game, as can others. Why do we need all that money invested in data collection and disseminating cat videos, political unrest, etc.
Almost certainly false. Imagine a world where the concept of open source never happened, so if you want a website you have to pay thousands of dollars for web servers, compilers, databases, etc. Would the demand for software developers be higher or lower than in our world?
I would rather musicians get paid in genres that I can’t stand than see the legion of programmers employed in “social media” and “on line marketing” and other things that keep people isolated and usually angry. Hell of a lot better things re personal and social interaction than having my phone glued to my wallet or my amygdala.
Neither musicians or social media is needed for modern life. Or even online marketing...
You probably want digital payment systems like banking and warehouse management. But I am thinking those sort of areas are only fraction of modern software industry.
At least for metal, there are still tons of tiny musicians. Underground labels do cassette runs for the smallest of them, medium-tiny ones might get vinyls.
Bandcamp is chock full of bands, from home produced stuff, to bands spending saved money on a cheap studio. It's enough that even in the sub-niches I like, I can listen to 10-20 newly released albums every week.
I doubt more than a small single digit percentage of them make money that way, but they very often really enjoy what they are doing.
imo, it's better to have a million bands dicking around and having fun playing terrible shows for crowds of ten people than a hundred polished superstar groups playing sold out arenas.
Those are not the only two choices. There are so many great bands playing shows to hundreds or a few thousand people.
Maybe you don't value music or live music, but there are a lot of people out there that do. You not caring much for it doesn't change the fact or make it ok that they're getting stiffed by those with the upper hand in the relationship.
It’s already happened to DJing. Used to require very expensive gear, crates full of expensive records, and a ton of talent.
Now someone with a $400 controller, pirated music, and some free time can do it. Loads of people willing to play at venues for free just for the fun of it have crushed the viability of doing it as an actual job.
We will start thinking about jobs when the tech feudal lords find out there's no more growth, because consumers to their products are being replaced by AI.
"How many jobs there should be for X" is not a question that can be answered by people whose main intent in the last few years has been to put others out of a job while claiming they're making the world a better place. Aka, us in tech.
> We will start thinking about jobs when the tech feudal lords find out there's no more growth, because consumers to their products are being replaced by AI.
The future feudal lords will just sell to each other and ignore the jobless, moneyless masses. We don’t like to hear this, but normal people will likely become less and less economically relevant, to the point where their total economic activity will one day be a rounding error next to the economic activity of the top 0.0N%.
I worked with a founder who dealt with only a small number of very rich customers. He would say “We only sell to the rich because they have the money.” The future looks like a more extreme version of this.
That doesn't work for all industries though. iPhones and other mass luxury/ "masstige" goods are essentially high-end commodities. Apple can't stay rich just selling to richies, they need poor sods to line up to buy millions upon millions of Apple devices. And that can't happen if aforementioned sods have no income. Same with most electronics, with most travel, with autos, with apparel, most restaurants, videogames, furnishings and appliances, etc. Income inequality can only go so far without dire economic consequences. If the non-wealthy become a mere rounding error in terms of aggregate purchasing power, then we simply won't be able to buy enough to keep these lifestyle manufacturers flush.
Rich people selling stuff to other rich people is just moving wealth around, it does not generate wealth.
I sell you stuff worth 5 billion, you give me 5 billion. Nothing happened. Maybe you even consume the product so there is less wealth.
Only labor can generate value. Work is what transforms a thing into another thing that has more value than before. Machines and AI do not create value.
You might wonder what would happen if they had an general AI, maybe actual autonomous robots? Would those create value? Well, at first whoever got the first AGI would get incredibly rich but if everyone had access to that tech, the prices for everything that can produced with it would plummet down until they are the cost of running the AI.
Rich people get richer by employing poor people. So they can extract the value they produce. If they don't employ anyone, they are not making any profit. (Well for actual free markets, you can of course make profit being a monopolist and stuff or just do crime.)
So yes, rich people are screwed. That is why they buy bunkers in New Zealand. That is why we see the rise of fascism, because they will have to tighten the screws to keep the ship running a little while longer.
Why keep any ships running other than their own? kill off 90% of the humans, starting with the poor, using robots, after robots can make new robots and fix themselves and do all the other jobs?
If we're looking at extremes, I don't think the ultra rich are in as bad a position as you want them to be.
a lot of ifs there, most of which aren't really in the cards: aka laborless robotic self reproduction? seriously?
if we have learned one thing in the last decades it is that complex systems need to be rebooted sometimes because <state>
silicone valley is grifting its own rich people with paper bomb shelters.
>I worked with a founder who dealt with only a small number of very rich customers. He would say “We only sell to the rich because they have the money.”
So you worked with someone who you claim to be a direct -knowing even- participant in this trend. You presumably benefited from this work too. No?
It's impressive how many people bemoan the dangers they see in a thing, while continuing to contribute to its growth, again and again and again, as long as the personal benefit keeps working their way.
I don't necessarily disagree with working for a founder who has that as a philosophy, because I also don't think some of the arguments here about the elite of the world appropriating ever more wealth while crushing the masses into misery are realistic at all (They smell more like mid-20th century communist fantasies of capitalist decline than anything to me)
But, if your central moral argument about the subject does revolve around thinking such a scenario is likely and being disgusted by it, then being paid by the people supposedly promoting this kind of economic inequality and working with them while they do it is pretty goddam hypocritical.
With the advent of streaming services like Spotify, it’s definitely getting worse, but the market has always been difficult from a strictly performative/sales perspective. I never made any real money from my compositions, but I pulled a decent side income teaching piano back in university.
It reminds me of ex-Soviet chess players. The emigration of so many good grandmaster-level players diluted the market, and unless you were in the absolute upper echelons (like Kramnik, Karpov, or Kasparov), you pretty much had to supplement your income by teaching on the side.
Oddly enough this also caused similar issues in classical orchestras - in the 90s a bunch of top flight Eastern European and Russian musicians raised the bar of orchestras in places like NZ, with the side effect of having fewer seats for younger musicians to move into.
What is it with so many people saying art should be a hobby? except for the really great.
But how are you going to get good if you don't get any practice and feedback?
I remember someone lamenting people videoing comedians in small venues and posting the fails, that follow you forever. How are you going to get good at stand up if you can't fail and learn?
Not everyone can be Steven King and get an advance worth 3 years salary for their first book.
Well, you know, it is kinda like how companies are replacing all the juniors with AI. It's cheap, for now. But then comes the question of what do you do in 5-10 years when you need some seniors with actual experience?
> How many financially self-sustaining musicians should there be?
That depends, how much do you value culture (and, my extension: cultural power)? If it's a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, then whatever the market will bear.
Everyone knows that music is the objectively superior art form. Perhaps excluding film, which, putting aside scant creative geniuses, requires music and scoring.
Anyone who could live on this planet without music is a psycopath.
People can be so go-go-go they don’t have time to think and reflect. Music is similar, it’s a source of constant distraction for the mind. It’s even more prominent in contemporary music. When listening to pieces more than a thousand years old and you’ll sometimes find works that build meaning into the silence as masterfully as artists compose paintings with negative space. But now it seems any gap must be filled with a beat. Y’all can stay wrapped up in your noise-noise-noise. But do excuse me for being comfortable in the silence of my own thoughts.
yes!
i still have the songs i listened to last week echoing around in my head. i foind out i have some kind of memory based perfect pitch, as when i put thr recording on again it's in the same key i was playing it in my head in.
i can literally hum every note of it, despite having heard it twice about a week ago, because it was poignant and stuck with me.
silence is golden and allows for reflection upon what we heard
I hear music all the time, when I commute, when I drive kids to various clubs, friends, and events, when they put music on at home, when I watch a TV show or a movie - all that music was produced by somebody.
I like art but I cannot remember the last time I went to an exhibition. Certainly not since my wife and I became parents.
"I like music but cannot remember the last time I went to a concert"
That seems like a weird angle to take it, no? I know it's just an example but there is more than one type of artist, just as there's more than one type of musician. As simple as it is, someone needed to design the YCombinator logo. Art is everywhere as well, even on a site like this that doesn't host much visual media.
(P.S. I do remember the last time I went to a concert. October).
I was mostly just saying that your comparisons seem uneven. You were comparing one specific part of art (landscape painting) to the entire music industry. There more ways to art.
Yesterday a butterfly got stuck in my pool, I usually try to save them. This one was trying it's hardest to fly but the water on it's wings was just slightly too heavy or something, but it was flapping really hard and making the most amazing ripple in the pool, I froze and couldn't stop looking at the ripple it was making, the ripple frequency and modulation was was slow and totally perfect, even tho it was flapping incredibly hard...but I also thought it's stuck and going to die, but I was totally fixated on the frequency and amplitudes. I managed to break my gaze and got it out. That was the most beautiful thing that made me think recently, I'm still thinking about it.
Now you’ve got me thinking about the beauty in the mundane. The real butterfly effect is the friends we make along the way. You saved the butterfly one time, and in the telling, you’ve helped save my hope in humanity. To me, these moments are as genuinely human as any achievement. To be human is to behold, and to be captivated thus.
5. There should be 5 people in whole of Canada to make money from their music. Or 15. Kazzillion razmadillion. How are you supposed to calculate that?
Well you don’t need to. The answer is ”as many as the market will support”, as it is with any other product. However, your rhetorical question misses the point completely. The question is not should a person just make thing x as a hobby, but that this global multi-billion dollar industry shares very little of it’s revenue to the people who make thump thump and bum bum that get’s asses on the floor and people to move. All of the examples in this article are clearly quite successful acts that people are willing to pay to listen to and are quite integral part of the economy as a whole (not to mention softer values such as cultural enrichment of all human life), but are struggling to make the ends meet. Why.
Because some else literally takes the money people pay to listen to them. If I want to listen rapper Yakkedi Yap’s new single Xingabow and give him money, I would be better off to sending them money in an envelope than listening them from any streaming app (maybe Bandcamp is an exception), or even going to their concert or buying their merch. Because someone literally steals the money.
At least if you buy a landscape painting from a gallery the gallery takes just 20-40% and artist gets the rest minus materials and taxes. They don’t take 60%, then minus every possible cost from the artist, then take what is left and give it to Drake.
>Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting
Plenty are. But your experience in landscape painting transfers to other professional crafts, so the loss is mitigated. What does a skilled musician have to tranfer to if the industry falls apart? Teaching music?
I also really don't like reinforcing the idea that "the arts aren't meant to be a career". One of the biggest turnabouts in the 20th century is that you don't need to already be set for life in order to spend your days training your passions. The arts are (or were) no longer this "high class" means to distinguish yourself from the working class.
Meanwhile so much of society is built upon and weathered against destruction over such artisans. Are you really going to have a healthy society if all kids see growing up are pencil pushers, hard physical labor, managing retail, or hyper-specializing after 20+ years of schooling? What's all that work building up to? To serve billionaires?
okay, well what if i had picked a different example:
nobody is out there lamenting that we're not supporting a 'middle class' of baseball players.
the top 0.001% get to the big leagues and make bank. the top 0.01% scrape by in the minors. nobody else makes a dime. yet... plenty of people are still passionate about the game and play it for free. the guys playing in an adult rec leauge aren't thinking "there's a career in this I can put together a good highlight reel this season". they're playing because they find it fun and fulfilling.
so maybe musicians should view music like professional sports? do it because you love it. start a band with your friends. play gigs at your local bar every friday. but don't kid yourself that it's a career.
>nobody is out there lamenting that we're not supporting a 'middle class' of baseball players.
I will cheekily argue that the "transferable skill" of failed athletes is charisma. It's pretty clear that being able to talk about sports is a cheat code for upwards mobility (no matter the industry) and the mentality it builds is of high social value (you'll never find trouble finding a local court or field to make a pickup game with. An artists Meetup, a bit harder to arrange). Certainly more than 99% of artists.
But to properly answer your point, I don't have the full answer of how to balance "necessary careers" with "dream careers". If you want to maintain a satisfied populace (aka, prevent a violent coup by people who feel they have nothing to lose), they need to feel their dreams are reachable. Emphasis on "feel".
You don't even need to make money off your dreams per se. But you need time for it, and basics safeties taken care of. the current atmosphere offers neither.
Why do you think nobody is lamenting that you can't make a living off of landscape painting? Lot's of people want to be professional artists. Some percentage of them actually are able to make a living off of it.
I think most artists would tell you that if people couldn't make a living as visual artists, the quality of new art in the world would decrease tremendously. Painting is a craft - it takes a lot of training to develop the skills. It also takes a ton of work to develop one's own style. Then there's the whole business part of marketing the work.
Very few great artists would have been able to reach their level of quality just doing it as a hobby.
In a world where some large fraction of the working-age population is employed in factories (most of those in automotive), maybe not so many should be musicians. In a world where we've shipped all those other blue collar jobs to Asia, every industry sub-sector that becomes unviable is a disaster. So asking "how many x should there be" sort of marks you as clueless or even callous. The answer is as many as there can possibly be, plus a few extra.
Time and time again, stories on totally different topics hinge on: during or just after the pandemic, there was a major change in cost of doing just about everything. Now of course, the pandemic was A. Big. Thing. and there was also an overlaid global supply-chain disruption when the Ever Given blocked the Suez Canal in '21.
But: fundamentally, why did all of this happen, and why haven't prices normalised (i.e. dropped) since?
Does anyone have a hypothesis, beyond 'corporate gouging', which I can accept, but seems too simplistic to explain what seems to be an enduring global phenomenon?
For prices specifically I think it's fair to say that inflation only goes in one direction, but for larger market trends, IMO the key here is _habit building_.
Many things were technically feasible pre-pandemic but not done habitually: remote work, streaming movies instead of going to the theater, ordering delivery instead of dining out, and so on. The pandemic forced many people to change their habits and get over any initial inertia (e.g. investing in a WFH setup or home theater). The result is that when the world returned to normal, the markets didn't: consumer habits had already moved on.
I left a career in music production five years ago and moved into programming (data science). there's no turning back.
I was very aware that I was lucky. You can be the best, you can have a great network, but (in my experience), luck is the main factor. and the "luck" window in the music space is more and more narrow currently.
I'm currently a data analyst, used to be a software engineer. Weirdly enough I feel that data analysis (programming, visualizing, consulting and presenting) feels a lot related to making music. I think I just see the art of being a data analyst.
I want to "move up" in my career, but I simply don't see the (performative) art of data science and data engineering. It feels too narrow. Music and data analysis feels broad. I could take a higher paycheck but it'd cost of a lot of fun.
It probably helps that I on top of that get to integrate LLMs and create LLM flows, basically n8n but then programming it using the APIs of an LLM. So I'm still actually programming as well.
I totally agree, because I work with data analysis as well.
Both feel similar because in the end you have to tell a story and (presumably) please the audience :)
This feel like it's related to the problem of no more mid-budget movies. Now that physical media (CD/VHS/DVD) isn't a thing, there is no long tail of fans to sustain mid-market efforts. Movies that cost a few tens of millions usually didn't make their budget back in the theater -- it was VHS and DVD sales that made up the difference. But now that doesn't happen, so those movies either don't get made, or they're made by the streamers.
Same thing with music. Streaming pays so little compared to physical media now that artists never make up the difference.
Not sure what the problem is, the streams will pay the budget of the movie, just like the old movie studios did. So where is the difference? Do they pay much less and no royalties?
It's really hard to become a cult classic when it's only on Netflix. But also yes, until recently (and even now), it pays a lot less to the people involved in the movie. There weren't really any residuals, the streamers make a one time payment.
Surely for most time, musicians have been working class. And precarious?
I'm not arguing in favour, I'm noting the deep historical social worth of a musician. It's classic veblen goods for a few, and serfdom for the rest.
Composers had ambiguous social standing. Virtuosi were superstars, but you didn't want your daughter to marry one.
What if the underlying relative value of music was returning to its organic roots? Maybe this is a version of the burger index and their labour value has been overweight for 50 or more years?
The cost in time and effort to become a musician is comparable to an apprenticeship or a surgeon. That cost isn't reflected in their value in the market.
Many skilled but repetitive jobs became automated away. From middle-class weavers (1760s) to middle-class car assembly workers (1970s) to middle-class journalists (eroding since 2000s) to middle-class software developers (happening now, alas).
All these professions did not disappear. They have transformed though more to tending and overseeing machines, at an income level below middle class, with a much smaller number of highly-skilled professionals doing the exceptional things which machines don't do too well.
When the technology is good enough for a one person to record an entire album, it's hard to be a specialist musician, like a violinist in an orchestra, or even a guitarist in a band
I suppose the skilled professions that will resist machine replacement for longest time are these which require a lot of custom work and adjusting to unique local circumstances: electricians, plumbers, car mechanics, doctors, hairdressers, maybe construction workers. But they will likely handle mostly special cases, where standard, machine-friendly solutions don't fit well, a bit like modern tailors.
Well, AI is here and I give it a high chance than in a few years all the music streaming platforms will go the way of the mastodon. Even recorded music in general may take a hit. I'm already skipping tracks in YT-music that I suspect they are AI-generated. When I find that the majority of the tracks are AI-generated, I'll start looking up individual producers and getting back to maintaining my own music collection in a harddrive and an MP3 player. Maybe I'll even buy a ticket and go to a concert, something I've only done once so far in my four decades and counting.
You may say that people just care about the music and not the musician, and that thus an AI-generated track is as good as any. Perhaps. But when I was a kid, all my pals developed their musical taste by word-of-mouth and I-want-to-be-cool-like-you-and-listen-to-Rammstein. Can't imagine all edgy teenagers will fall in love with an AI model.
Disclaimer: I work in the pro audio industry and have decades of experience with this industry from the perspective of a developer of instruments, tools, and so on, specifically for creatives.
You see, I firmly believe that music, itself, is a form of currency.
So exchanging that currency for another is the problem.
However, I can say with a great deal of certainty - having observed musicians for decades - musicians make money when they make live music.
Not all music can be played live.
But live musicians are the future of music.
It’s one thing to be able to conjure up whatever you want with AI.
But, do it live, in front of 1000 people.
Or, even 10.
I can walk through my city today and encounter 100 (easily) musicians making money every hour, plying their wares into the stones of the streets and pedestrian bubbles.
But yeah, it’s hard work. Why not make an AI do it?
You get up on stage in front of a bunch of people, and you deliver a performance that they find compelling enough to contribute their own acknowledgement of your work in exchange, and in this process there is a current that flows between the artist and the audience, which - when properly motivated - increases in value over time.
I had a look at this artists YouTube page. Clearly he is just not very popular despite winning some awards, having various CBC interviews, being endorsed by the city of Edmonton and playing for Justin Trudeau.
As has always been the case with music, success is extremely rare. For every winner, there are a million losers. So, better to think of it more like a lottery than a normal industry / job.
I know of one songwriter with multiple number 1 hits that was with a large american label for a while ... then moved to another, and the original label kept collecting the royalties when they were no longer contractually allowed to.
Their answer: "So sue us, it'll cost more than you'll get, we can drag this on for years, and you can't get costs awarded, so if we were you we'd just eat the L".
In my region of the world an artist of any kind would fall into one of two groups:
-Poor and malnourished member of the common folk.
-Part of the elites, who is set for life anyway and creates art thanks to the ample spare time they have.
I used to be in a band and one major point of contention in our group was whether we could make a living out of this. My opinion was that no, we couldn't.
I have a friend who enjoys moderate success with his band - they're doing historical reconstruction so they're invited to events in the space and, of course, paid. He keeps his day job though. Truth be told in the historical reconstruction field only smiths and tailors can pull off this being their main thing and it's not a given.
We were discussing this on another musician forum.
It has been a double (triple, even) whammy for musicians, compared to mid 90s and back. There used to be a time where you could play in a band, not a huge signed one, and still make a living. Just off playing the door, on the regular bar / club circuit.
People went out much more back in the day. A regular weekday gig could bring you more money than a weekend gig does today. Unless you play in the most tourist-y hot spots, in the largest cities (think Nashville Broadway), you're not going to find places that play music all days. Not even 3-4 days a week. If you're lucky, it is going to be live music a couple of days, and almost only during weekends. Assuming you're paid $70 - $200 pr. gig, calculate how many gigs you need to play a year to not live in poverty.
Pay hasn't really changed much, either - for the musicians that play for a flat fee, that figure has been standing still for decades.
Almost every professional musician I know will have a battery of side hustles, these days. They will take every gig they can find, they will give lessons, they will do studio work, they will work as techs, become niche influencers, they will do whatever it takes.
But more often than not, they will have abandoned music as their main revenue stream, and rather pick up regular job that generates a steady paycheck, and gig during the weekends.
I can count on one hand the musicians / artists that have managed to make it "big", as in being C- or D-lister artists, and thus making a living off their recorded and touring music. They still spend equally much time on their social media, as that is what gets your name out. There is an immense pressure to play the algorithm, because that could make your tune blow up and become viral.
In fact, that is often how musicians become "famous" these days. Suddenly their tune becomes viral in tiktok vids, and that's how they manage to get millions of listeners...doesn't actually pay much, but it puts a big spotlight on your name.
I'm a software engineer by trade, but have played bluesy / rock guitar since I heard Jimi Hendrix as a teenager. I try to run a band, to fuel my mid-life crisis but I've come to the conclusion that it's essentially a hobby, not a device for making money.
In a discussion about the outstandingly high cost of concert tickets, I had a breakthrough moment just on Friday (today is Sunday where I am). Artists no longer make a living selling recorded music because of streaming platforms. They now make their living performing, hence exceedingly expensive concert tickets.
I used to go to shows that cost $30-80. Now they are hundreds and the biggest artists may cost >$1k. I'm lucky that I make a good living, cause I wouldn't be able to go to most shows otherwise.
Well this is timely. I just started EDM production as a hobby 2 weeks ago! I did it a long while ago for a bit and it's time to rekindle the music flame. Well, I guess I've always been beatboxing but I'm never aware of that. My subconscious mind plays a lot of tricks on me when it comes to my musicality. My musicality is quite a subconscious thing actually. Well, not anymore!
I haven't read the article yet but I suspected as much that there is not much money in music, not even a livable wage. That's not why I'm doing it though. I have a few tracks in my mind since childhood (and a few more recent ones) that I want to get out. Also it's a fun thing to learn about marketing while I'm at it.
My point: I think that should be enough. Not everything we do has to make enough money.
It's finally time to put that perfect pitch and subconscious OCD style melody generation to use!
* Is the amount of music listened to in a day down?
* Is the rate of music creation down?
* Given some metric of diversity is music diversity down?
* Given some metric of quality is music quality down?
* Are there fewer artists per capita / in total?
* Has the Gini coefficient really shifted?
I assume that for almost all of these, the answer is actually no. Presumably, technology has made making more higher quality music easier and cheaper than ever, and people are listening to more than ever.
In Jan, my son ordered a mystery box from ... I dunno who. It just showed up. Evidently it was someone connected with King Gizzard because it was recently released KG vinyl, inc a test pressing. Also a sealed cassette of another band that we don't recognize. Also stickers.
Connect with fans, treat them well and stay creative - and they'll buy your stuff. Often a lot of it.
Yeah King Gizzard have basically done the complete opposite of what is considered good advice on making it in the music business and made it work.
Rapid release schedule (except the last year or so), inconsistent genre choices, questionable aesthetic choices, not much marketing, and just some generally goofy stuff and it just works. I think part of it is folks just tired of the packaged crap and see it for what it is. Pure authentic stuff.
Streaming is the biggest scam to have perpetuated the entertainment industry. The way the money is divided among the content creators is absurd and the prices are both too high and too low at the same time.
It's even more of a scam because none of these companies were making such services with a way to actually profit in mind. It got customers spoiled on unrealistically cheap media; cheap media that was a result of skilled labor that only got more expensive over time. The bubble was going to burst one day.
In some regards, the ZIRP era ending was needed; companies can't just make money by relying on hype for years, even decades before the piper needs to be paid. But of course it couldn't have ended in a worst time.
It’s cheap because I can carry a terabyte in my pocket not because of anything else. If somehow we went back to selling 700 MB CDs of uncompressed music I would still fill my pocket with a terabyte of every song to not pay $30 a CD.
> In some regards, the ZIRP era ending was needed; companies can't just make money by relying on hype for years, even decades before the piper needs to be paid. But of course it couldn't have ended in a worst time.
Maybe that is why lots of people are struggling more now while the economy numbers say things are better than ever.
For now. I believe the gdp started to slightly contract last quarter. The government never wants to admit times are bad, but eventually even their massaging of the data can't hide the true situation.
It's not great. But the economics of selling recordings never worked out for artists; it's possible that most of what streaming does is to kill advances for artists, and royally fuck labels, the perennial antagonists in the stories we tell about the music industry.
Music doesn't the buyer money, at the same time millions are qualified to make it and to boot millions enjoy making it. There is little barrier to entry and there is more than enough of it. Even if another song is never made. It's in the sweet spot for being a low paid shithole.
I'd look at NFTs for similar market dynamics. Some big winners but mostly people not making a dime.
Recording worked only as merch to sell at live shows.
recording also works to give a 'real job' to those who insist on making music for a living.
Only a few have ever made a job of performing. The midevil bard was often a second son of a nobel supported as a way to ensure they kill the older brother for the throne. Everyone else music was a hobby they did after farming was done.
To be blunt, the numbers show that the main problem is the listener. Most just do not care to choose so they consume what they're told is cool. If you think you care but consistently listen to artists present in Spotify's top 100 by choice, sorry, you're part of the problem too. Most being passive consumers has always been the case, but the system perfects itself with time and less and less attention trickles down.
Notice, how I used "attention" and not "money" or even "listens". Just look at the first and the main goalpost independent artist set for themselves. It's no longer "buy our music" or "come to our show", by now they strive to convince the audience to attempt to listen to their songs.
By this time I consider an artist that's only present in streaming services and lacks a visible way of direct distribution of their music (which includes such services as Bandcamp, for now) either an utterly mismanaged one or, again, a part of the problem†.
The only way for the artist to feel appreciated is building their loyal fan base, but if you don't want to wear the "entertainer" hat (which now equals becoming a circus monkey for the trending social media) this becomes harder and harder for a bunch of reasons:
1. Music is just not as culturally important as it was 50 years ago. 2. Live shows are in decline and dominated by cover/tribute acts. 3. As correctly mentioned in TFA, you're fighting with everything else plus everything that came before you. 4. The world is closing. Visas have always been a curse‡, but nowadays even if I jump through a myriad of hoops and get one, I can't even cross the border to the countries we usually started the tours from in a previous life. 5. The internet feels like a collapsing space too, though it's probably the most controversial opinion of mine.
There's also a problem of NNGC. At least the previous boom (blockchain) promised to make things better in some way (and it did, but underdelivered tenfold), but the current one ("AI") doesn't even do that — there's not even a positive scenario how the life of a common artist becomes better, unless "post-scarcity" truly happens (it won't).
---
†: To clarify, this is about modern artists, things are a bit different when we speak about "legacy" acts that jump started their careers in a different era.
‡: Even though in case of EU most artists entering didn't care and used their tourist visas because they did not make any money anyway.
The part that really stuck with me: how success in music now feels more like surviving a battle of attrition than "making it". The irony is brutal—more people are making music than ever, but fewer can live off it.
I'm disappointed - this article is very short sighted. Everything in it is about recording and making money from concerts and stuff. It's all modern. When was the time of the middle class musician? What was the distribution of musicians as a primary job vs all jobs?
Throughout history it seems that there has always been an imbalance of musicians that make good money and those that don't. It seems that most musicians did it for free as part of a community/spiritual ceremony, or did it as a part time thing.
The modern issues are related to the technological advancements. The true cause of issue the article talks about is right in the beginning of it - music has never been easier to make and record. Supply and demand?
Writers have been experimenting with paywalls (substacks etc) - musicians aren't? Indies keep complaining about streaming and platforms killing their livelihood but I wonder if this is just because the target for "justice" seems clearer (eg. Spotify cut, etc)
Seems to me that music has an additional challenge which is most revenue channels requires middlemen: streaming infrastructure, merch factories, venues owners, technicians, etc which artist can't/won't replace.
At some point musicians - as product creators - need to have a clear biz model for their enterprise and passion to try it. Not just passion to create, passion to sell.
The death of the middle class everything. I have no idea how median wage statistics are possible. There is not a single neighborhood in my city where median income in that neighborhood can afford rent or a mortgage in that neighborhood. It’s all non-wage sources of wealth and no traditional middle class lifestyle is possible
Few people should make a living with music, or indeed any other form of art. Art is a hobby.
Literally everyone is an artist, even if their art consists of bad doodles and singing in the shower. Sure, some people are more talented than that, but expecting to make a living with art? Nah...
is all art equal? is there no structure or history to art? is copying someone elses ideas the same as bringing new ideas to life?
i contend that music is a discourse space where great minds show great structural concepts, and where minds with nothing to say merely regurgitate others ideas ad nauseum
When people use terms like "neofeudalism", this is the sort of thing we're talking about. It's capitalism working as intended. There are an increasing number of jobs that are only available to the children of the wealthy. There are several reasons for this:
1. Any of the creative professions have way more applicants than positions so nepotism dominates. It's almost shocking how many nepo babies there are in Hollywood. It infects every level. It could be that some rich person will fund your indie movie as long as you give a major role to their child. It can be family connections to studio decision-makers,. It can be currying favor with Hollywood heavyweights. Whatever. Either way, getting in as a nobody is increasingly difficult;
2. Education. First, you have legacies. Roughly a third of Harvard's undergrad class are legacies ie the children of wealthy donors. That's the real DEI. But also it's the cost. The wealthy can absorb the cost of an elite education.
This is a real issue with medical school. Someone can often graduate with $300-600k in student loan debt. By the time they finish residency they may owe $500k-1M. The wealthy can absorb this. There are a few medical schools now that offer free tuition thanks to some large endowments. Many medical schools try and have people from more diverse economic backgrounds but it's difficult. Not having to worry about money means you caa afford to spend a year doing unpaid research to pad your resume. The free tuition schools seem to have skewed more to students from wealthier backgrounds because they're simply better connected and better able to game getting into such schools;
3. Housing costs specifically and the cost of living generally. 30 years ago if you were trying to make it as a musician in LA you could rent an apartment for $300-400/month. You could live cheaply. You could chase that dream. Now? The average apartment seems to be near or over $2000/month.;
4. The disappearance of third spaces. Higher housing costs mean the higher cost of businesses. If a bar or a coffee shop needs now absorb rent of $200,000/year where once it was $10-20k, that affects what busineses are viable and for those that are, it's an input to the cost of everything. Well, those were performance spaces for up and coming acts. You see this in the UK, for example, where the number of pubs just keeps going down as they sold and converted into apartments. Community spaces just cannot survive with the high cost of property; and
5. The freedom to fail. I saw a clip of Allison Williams recently who acknowledge this. For those that don't know, she was one of the main cast of HBO's Girls. She's the daughter of Brian Williams, a long-time news anchor. Fun fact: the entire main cast of this show were all nepo babies. It cannot be overstated what relieving the fear of becoming homeless can do to your opportunities.
Now some, particularly here, have long pointed to tech as their key to social mobility. That's been true for a long time but I suspect many here are in for a rude shock. We're already seeing it with the layoffs and how many people apply for any given job. AI will make this worse.
And who do you think will get positions in this shirnking pool of opportunities? It'll be the same children of wealthy people. It'll be connections, access to funding and other factors that give you opportunities.
Interestingly, and that may be a personal opinion - I have bought more music from more obscure musicians in the last few years, mostly thanks to Bandcamp.
Before that, I mostly gravitated to 'blockbuster musicians', old classics, 1970s psychedelic rock. Today I buy some unknown musician's album every few days (and I pay what I'd pay for a 'proper' album, even if it is pay what you want).
Part of that is simply availability. The old record stores of old were often just "what's popular" with a side dish of "what the owner likes". Today? I found some Touareg rock band the other day. In the 1990s, that was virtually impossible even for music lovers.
Part of it is that today, I pay for what I like. Radio sucks, the classics are oversaturated, and often enough new releases are just qualitatively worse - both in composition as well as remasters which tend to sacrifice nuance for loudness. But indy bands? I don't expect perfection, but often enough find it.
Now, I understand I am a rare breed. In a Spotify world, the one buying FLACs is exotic. I do understand that the mid-range musician is not going to become a millionaire - but who ever did?
The example in the article sounds a lot like the artist has been bent over a barrel by the record company - a pattern even "successful" musicians have experienced. Maybe instead of chasing fame, the solution is to do your own marketing.
The musical middle class wasn’t thinned out by the audience, but by labels and streaming models. If you’re not topping the charts, you vanish between promotion costs and algorithmic obscurity - unless you go directly to the listener.
all this was obvious the moment napster became popular. and for more than a decade anyone who explained what was happening was ridiculed, especially in tech circles.
spotify in particular cemented a payment structure that disadvantages any “serious” music versus endless repeat pop songs, while also being completely corrupted by conflict of interest from record labels with an ownership stake. now they manufacture their own muzak and steer your playlist to it, draining the last bits of revenue possibility away from these “middle class musicians.”
youtube streamed music for free for years, paying no artists, and it was one of its core growth engines. completely asymmetrical outcome.
the whole thing denigrated musicians, and music itself. hordes of early online young tech professionals making great money at their office jobs poo pooing the concerns of an entire industry which previously enabled some of the most sophisticated artistic endeavors our culture ever attempted.
just dumb. a complete victory of lowbrow values.
baffling someone is writing this article in 2025. at every fork in the road, the path was taken that would give less revenue to the musicians. and ~no one in tech felt it was a problem.
talking about it like there is a revelation or an emerging phenomenon here mystifies, while rubbing salt in the wound.
"onetheless, the state has a role to play. The government has long forced commercial and campus radio stations to play at least 35 percent CanCon—that is, music that meets two of the four criteria of MAPL (music, artist, performance, lyrics): that the music was composed by a Canadian, performed by a Canadian, and recorded in Canada, with lyrics written by a Canadian. But imposing such requirements on internationally owned streamers has proven challenging."
When the state dictates artistic content, that is socialism.
What's the deal with always wanting to turn art into a day job, anyway? These things are almost antithetical, as exemplifies by thousands of YouTube channel that turned into soulless content-producers in an effort to keep a schedule.
Damn, people somehow made art in 10000BC, when everyone was a hunter-gatherer by necessity.
"as exemplifies by thousands of YouTube channel that turned into soulless content-producers in an effort to keep a schedule."
This means that a former musical artist became a Youtube content producer in order to earn a living.
This does not illustrate the negative effects of paying musicians to make music.
What if you want to maximize your talent? I'm sure you're good at something; isn't it satisfying to get better at it? At some point you'll maximize the improvement you can make in your free time; if you get there before you reach the ceiling of your ability or your drive, then what else are you going to (want to) do?
This comment makes the same point, better than I did:
quite right. i happen to be an amazing musical genius with the keys to the future of the art, and i will not share my hobby work with you or the world because you just pulled the rug out from under my lifes mission by reducing everything to shopping mall McDonald's aesthetics. enjoy your oldies and cover bands.
> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.
Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.
I do a lot of things as an amateur but at pretty high level: athletics, music, art and more. I also pay a huge portion of my income as a software developer in direct and indirect taxation. Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living, the same things I love to do but realize can't be your sole pursuit.
You've conflated people busting ass who can't keep up with those following their passion in the arts voluntarily. Those don't feel anything like the same thing to me. I don't think I'm alone in a perspective that if you keep taking more from me I'll stop contributing all together, and we'll all fail. The ultra-rich and others with means to avoid picking up the tab have already done so.
> Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living, the same things I love to do but realize can't be your sole pursuit.
You already are, it's just going to the ultra wealthy and pension fund kids, while you slave your life away making that stock go up because you believe there should be no other choice.
So why not have the worker get/keep more of his money, instead of giving it to a different group of "others"?
Because the worker doesn't have the ability to be able to protect his interests when he is just keeping his money.
The rich are able to keep larger portions of their income, and then eventually leverage that to be patrons of political power and set the rules for themselves.
You are also not in the same category as the super rich, so theres an unspoken blurring of the terms here as well - theres no sense in considering a normal perso, or a rich person against someone like Bezos, who has the wealth of several countries.
Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much.
> Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much.
So what does this have to do with income inequality? If you try to make a living from a business and the revenue you get from it is not enough to keep it afloat, what does it say about it's viability and income inequality?
Sure, but he'd make more if he wasn't taxed so much.
In my country, from the customer to the persons net paycheck, a bit over half goes to the government (vat, 2x different benefits, income tax).
Every time someone mentiones taxes, the rich and the poor over here, the average (ie. people earning around average income) get taxed more, the rich on paper earn nothing, and the poor get taxed the same (because there's nothing more to take).
I'd much prefer a system where an average joe would pay a lower percantage of taxes (ie. a tax break), and people like bezos would actually get taxed at the same rate instead of paying zero throug loopholes).
I understand that you don’t like the European taxation regime, where the bulk of the tax burden is carried by the middle class, but I find it strange that then you give Bezos as a negative example. It is strange, because in US, unlike in Europe, it is the wealthy who pay most of the taxes. Our middle class pays very little tax, unlike middle class in Europe.
Your argument begs the question. If we made it so it could be a sole pursuit then you'd be free to choose.
Besides, why do you want to live in a world with less artists and full of people who hate their jobs?
OK, I'll do my best: Economies of scale.
Consider two toy economies: One in which purchasing power is fairly evenly distributed among the population, and one in which it's concentrated via a power-law distribution into the top 1%, and 0.1%, etc.
In the first case, the quantities of mass-market products demanded will be much larger, because more people can afford to purchase them. This means demand for things like cameras, cell phones, breakfast cereals, movies, video games software, etc, go up. However most of these are also things where economies of scale makes production more efficient as order quantities increase. Factories can invest in jigs, automation, and high-throughput lines to make enough quantity for everyone. The jobs that produce these goods also become better-paid, and easier to secure investment for, because order quantities are higher and less volatile. And doubly so for intangible goods like software, ebooks, music, and video games: production can scale to infinite demand, so there can never be a production shortage, but people who work in these industries can be better rewarded for their efforts because a bigger audience can afford to pay more.
So order quantities grow, and so do incomes, but inflation is relatively low because of the increasing efficiency of production. This means real GDP per capita increases greatly, and the population as a whole becomes materially more wealthy. Even though wealth is being distributed away from top earners, there are huge material rewards available to anyone able to supply goods and services to the masses, because the masses are able to pay for those goods and services.
In the wealth-concentration economy, those mass-production industries have to fight for scraps, because the top 1% has as much purchasing power as the bottom 99%, and the top 0.1% has more purchasing power than the 1% below them. More purchasing power is directed towards luxury goods: golf courses, supercars, yachts, country club estates, Rolex watches, art, private jets, and real estate. Production quantities are low and inefficient, and in the case of land, production is effectively impossible. Prices go up for these assets, but there is little productive benefit to the economy. The excess wealth of the 0.1% is put towards buying political influence, buying news media, and so on, which becomes another negative for society as a whole. Meanwhile an entrepreneur might identify a pressing need among the bottom 25% of the populace, where very simple things (eg. vitamins or eyeglasses) could create an incredible increase in social welfare, but they will not be able to secure investment nor be rewarded for such efforts because there is no profit in it; the poor cannot afford to pay.
Because you have to live in a society with those other people. Because that's going to be YOU in the future. Because it's going to be your kids, your cousins, your neighbors.
> Because you have to live in a society with those other people.
Your reply was a strawman arguments, and fails to address OP's point. The point is quite simple and straight-forward: if your argument for UBI is that people could hypothetically pursue their interests, why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required to finance this income redistribution scheme only to have others, perhaps less talented and dedicated than me, pursue my interests at my expense?
The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it
why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required
You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. And far more of your tax bill is going toward subsidizing people and industries who are already rolling in money than helping relieve the burden on the poor.
I'm not saying you should pay more tax, you should probably be paying less. But we should reorganize the economy away from rewarding ownership of property as if it were productive economic economy activity in and of itself.
> The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it
No. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the question or you tried to avoid it. My question refers to the core argument involving any economic system: fairness and equity. Why are you trying to avoid touching on the topic?
> You're not. You are not the only person paying tax.
Yes, I am. Everyone is forced to pay taxes, and I am no different. In income redistribution schemes such as UBI you get a chunk of your salary taken straight from your pay check to finance other paychecks. So far this sort of scheme is used to cover salaries representing social safety nets such as pensions, disability, and temporarily for unemployed. UBI radically changes that, as it goes well beyond the role of social safety net and unconditionally extends this to everyone. So now you are faced with a scenario where you have two classes of people: those who sustain the scheme and make it possible, and those who only consume it's resources.
Even if you try to argue there's a net benefit to society, you must face the problem of lack of equity. For instance, how do you justify to people like OP that they should continue working at their jobs so that others can have the privilege of pursuing their personal interests? If you argue that OP is also free to quit his job to pursue his interests then you're advocating for an income redistribution scheme that presssures participants to not contribute to it and instead consume the resources it manages to mobilize.
Because the guy sticking out 60 hours a week at the office to get a comfortable middle class life loves his job just as much as the painter traveling to do his national parks series.
Therefore the government can tax the office worker and use the proceeds to buy the artists paintings and utopia is here!
You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.
Why are you pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care? Because society is more pleasant overall if everyone can assume a baseline availability for those things.
> You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.
That's fantastic. So let's build upon your personal belief, and as the system is universal then your recommendation is extended to everyone subscribing to the service.
Now please explain how you expect to finance an income redistribution scheme where all participants do not contribute back and instead only expect to consume from it.
Its not a strawman. The argument is: because you need the other people in the society. You need them for basically everything. You have built your life on shoulders of others. Everything you can do, you can do because you profit from other's labour. That is why. You would not have culture, language, computers, roads, garbage collection, nursing homes, music to listen to, etc. You have enjoyed all these things "at the expense" of the people who did that for you.
I love art and I also love making art, but I have to work so I don’t get to spend as much time on it as I’d like.
Yet that doesn’t mean I want to see other people making less art. On the contrary: I wish other people could create more great stuff that makes me happy, and I’m also happy if my tax euros (and my private consumption) help pay for that.
What I’m trying to say is that this idea of “I don’t get to do it, so nobody else should either” seems completely foreign to creativity. It’s not a zero-sum game.
“I don’t get to do it, so nobody else should either”
That's not it at all. There are already tons of people doing it, so many that the incremental value of one more person is small. The low pay reflects that; it's a signal that you should consider other jobs that are more in demand.
You don't have to pay tax, you can just go buy their work directly!
I want artists I’ve never heard of to have the ability to grow.
Taxes are a great way to fund culture, sort of like an index fund: I don’t have to try to pick winners now, I’ll get the accumulated benefit eventually.
> Convince me I should fund people
Are you in the top 1%? If so, you can afford it. If not, then I don't think your taxes should go up - I think Bezos' taxes should go up, and there should be a wealth tax for high net worth individuals.
The top 1% globally is 60K USD for a single earner. Should taxes go up for anyone above this level?
Currently, US taxes are primarily used inside the US, the exception being foreign aid, which relatively is a small amount.
Are you suggesting the US should fund a global UBI?
The logic extends flawlessly so it's difficult to say "I'm all for UBI, but only within our borders".
The US has used cheap labor globally for decades, why would the blue collar worker in Indiana qualify more than the blue collar worker in Indonesia? Both are making goods for American billionaires and both are struggling.
What? Why would US taxes have anything to do with people in poorer countries?
It seems that UBI arguments are all about "fairness". So it naturally should extend to other countries it seems. Otherwise you are just creating another greedy / protected group.
Of course people usually try to draw the UBI Venn diagram such that they are a net receiver of funds.
It's sounds like you are trying to draw it to be as absurd as possible to reduce the proposition to something ridiculous.
It is hard to say "I want UBI because inequality" and then fail to recognize this.
What they are really saying is "I don't want anyone to be richer than I am but fine with people being poorer". So the default human position on things.
What would be absurd about a global UBI? It's amazing how fast people jump off the high horse of equality when you point out that on a global scale they are incredibly rich and privileged.
Equality to them means them getting more material goods, not them giving up more material goods.
As soon as those other countries join the US it should extend to them as well.
> Convince me I should fund people to focus full-time on things where they can't make a living
I cannot do that.
But given that we need the labour of about 10% (give or take) of people for society to function, we need to change our economic arrangements
I think we should fund the basic meat hook realities for the common person. Accommodation, food, health care, shoes...
That is a UBI - Universal Basic Income
It will simplify so many aspects of modern life, increase our taxes, and open up many opportunities
The current system has failed to deliver anything like economic justice and needs rethinking
This will mean that people are able to "focus full-time on things where they can't make a living", rather than hustle for crusts. That is a side effect, not the purpose
Because if all these people are forced to do what you do, because nothing else pays their bills, your income will go down.
Also, all the people who cant do what you do, should they just curl up and do fentanyl? What do you propose they should do?
Assuming you live in the US, it is relatively easy to convince you - but it heavily relieve on you opening your eyes.
Start traveling, talking to other cultures, and stop being dismissive and defensive.
I feel like this is one of the fundamental issues with US taxation today and this overall issue of wealth inequality. People like you, high-income and likely not a lot of shelters for that income based on what you're saying, pay a lot of taxes percentage-wise and so the thought of paying another 1-2 percentage points is, for lack of a better word, sickening. I tend to think you're right about that because it feels really unfair when you're paying 40-50% tax, a lot of people pay zero, and then people who are much wealthier than you are paying 20%.
It's when you start making fabulous amounts of money, and can park it in all sorts of shelters, whether that's straightforward things like real estate or, as HN commenters point out every time this comes up, by not ever even earning income or investment gains and so you can drive your tax towards zero (by doing things like taking out loans against your assets for money to live on).
I'm not sure what the answer is, but a North Star, in my mind, would be that as you have more you pay more, a truly progressive scheme, because every additional dollar you earn (through income or investment gains, realized or unrealized), as you get richer, actually is less critical to your livelihood. Who am I to say that? I'm not talking about some nebulous concept. I'm saying that if you make $1 million dollars per year, in total, a dollar extra matters less to you than it does to someone making $100,000 so I'm purely speaking on a relative basis (cue someone saying "how do you know it matters less? That person could live in a HCOL location, or have 12 kids or..." Hopefully we can avoid that because it misses the point; those things are choices people make. How much you're taxed is not a choice for the most part though can be to some extent (move from a high-tax state to a low one, etc.).
There's actually a mathematical proof that the more dollars you have, the lower the utility of the marginal dollar; utility has to fall at least logarithmically or else you face the St. Petersburg paradox.
If all the people who passionately pursue art decided to pursue only profitable full-time jobs, you bet that your software developer job would pay shit like an art and you'd be way worse off than if you just paid a few hundred bucks (at most, let's be real, unless you have serious assets in which why would we pity you) annually to allow to a civilized society that actually allows for cultural innovations.
If you want to talk about the root of problems, it comes down to preferences. Income inequality in musicians? People prefer some musicians and songs over others. UBI and taxation isn't going to meaningfully change the income inequality between the median and top earners in entertainment fields due to social dynamics. Guess what the primary driver of the housing shortage is? Preference for larger homes and "better" locations. There are enough housing units nationally, but their distribution and charateristics don't match the preferences. You might be thinking about NIMBY, but guess what that is? The preferences of the people already there. Solutions like UBI or just building more skip a logical step of evaluating the true underlying causes and presume them instead. To solve a problem we must first understand it.
In Britain it’s noticeable that as unemployment benefit and social housing has been stripped back the proportion of people from working class backgrounds with careers in the arts has declined. The most visible example of this is probably actors; pretty much all the current generation of British actors went to public school and were able to support themselves via family wealth as they became established. This wasn’t the case for the generation coming through in the 70s and 80s. The underlying cause is that if you can’t subsist as you learn your craft you can’t learn your craft, I don’t think this is mysterious.
This doesn’t just apply to the arts, if all junior dev roles are stripped away by llm’s where do the talented developers of tomorrow come from? Those who can learn the craft on their own time, those with independent wealth.
At a societal level there is a huge amount of potential talent being left on the table, and imo redistributive policies are the obvious fix. In think this is really important both from a mortal point of view and an economically pragmatic one.
The real question then is why the "professionals" in these fields are able to command such massive incomes, and why people are prepared to pay multiple hundreds to watch their favourite singer but won't drop into a free gig at an open mic night. Why some footballers can can earn millions per week, and the lower tiers of the sport are paid so little. Why top actors can earn more from one film than even most doctors or lawyers will earn in their lifetime, while other decent actors spend their entire careers working as an extra, etc...
Clearly everyone can see that the system is "unfair" in almost every industry, so the question is why does everybody perpetuate this system. It seems to be that by and large, people are prepared to pay more to get more of whatever they consider "the best" and they care much less about everything else in that space.
But shift the focus away from people and to products - why are so many people willing to pay over $1000 for the latest iPhone, when they already have the previous year's phone, and a $100 phone probably does 90% of what they need.
Again, it's because people want the best they can afford, and so the market increases the price to the point that maximises the product of price and people prepared to pay that price. Sadly, for the aspiring musician that hasn't been scouted yet, the price is low and even then not many people are prepared to pay it. This is why we have record labels who scout for talent, front them some money up front, handle publicity and building an audience, hoping that one of their 100+ artists might make enough that they can pay for the rest and still make a profit.
This has nothing to do with subsisting while learning your craft. This is about a supply and demand difference and the inequality in entertainment roles. If you have too many actors, then the nobodies get paid next to nothing while the famous people get the lion's share. And many of those nobodies never make even close to earning a living because the supply side is saturated and the demand side doesn't want to pay for that art. You have to have buyers.
Class in this context is referring to the actors' backgrounds, i.e. parental incomes, rather than their own income. There is an issue if you have to be born to a rich family in order to take on a career like acting, and right now, at least based on the evidence, that appears to be true: you need a sufficient safety net to be able to survive for a long time on basically no income while you practice and work low-paying gigs until you finally break through. For some people that just isn't possible.
A social safety net means that more people have the ability to try out risky careers - not necessarily that more of them will succeed, but that the pool of applicants will be larger and include a wider proportion of the population.
Should we also subsidize lottery tickets?
Does society benefit from there being lots of lottery winners from a variety of backgrounds? I think there is a big difference between having a thriving arts landscape and having a thriving landscape of people who won the lottery.
Why would your proposal result in a 'thriving arts landscape'?
Lotteries are already a tax on people bad at math
The inequality of musicians is not about what they earn once they make a living making music. Professional instrumentalists, for example, tend to be paid fairly equally (though not necessarily well).
It's about who gets to become a musician, because practicing the skill takes a lot of resources, and it seems the middle class can no longer afford that.
>> It's about who gets to become a musician, because practicing the skill takes a lot of resources, and it seems the middle class can no longer afford that.
Most of the middle class has lots of time to practice (just do that instead of watching TikTok). Practice can help you become a better musician, but cannot make you great - innate talent is needed for that. Being great is also no guarantee of success - luck and / or other forms of skill are needed (marketing capability, etc).
This is also only on the performance side of things. The real limiting factor in music for the most part is writing songs that people want to hear. If you can do that you will be successful almost immediately because supply and demand is so out of balance here and distribution is trivial.
This seems extremely overly reductive. It's not just "time to practice".
It's also about having access to equipment that is available, clean, and in proper working order.
And it's about having access to educators who can teach you what you are doing right or wrong. And those educators having the time to be able to actually do so.
And it's about having the ability to attend performances or competitions so that you can learn to actually perform and to receive impartial critique to improve. That doesn't just mean having the option of attending these events but also being able to afford the fees associated with the events as well as being able to afford transportation (whether that's getting there yourself or having family being able to take time off from work to transport you there and back).
You don't need every one of these to be able to succeed but each one of these legs you take away is one less leg the next generation of lower and middle class musicians have to stand on.
The focus here again seems to be on the plight of the Orchestral musician / related. While this might represent a large portion of mind share in some groups it is tiny from an economic perspective when compared to mainstream recording acts. The primary instruments driving this revenue are as follows: 1) voice 2) drums 3) bass 4) guitar 5) keyboard. None of these things are expensive or hard to maintain. You don't even need to be particularly good at any of these things other than voice.
That's also true for programmers, machinists, all kinds of engineers, pilots, etc.
A cheap guitar + youtube to start is a lot cheaper than anything involving eg. CNC machining, where most people can't even think about starting the process, way before the "get good" phase. Just obtaining a mac + an iphone is hard to impossible in many places on earth, especially for younger people.
This doesn't work in practice. Marketing for instance rewards spending far more than skill. Sure social media/viral marketing can theoretically be free, but that just kicks the can down the road. My friend's band is (in my opinion) terrific, but despite constantly playing shows and posting everywhere haven't gotten "instan" success". They haven't gotten the recommendation algorithms or playlists skewed in their favor by signing with a major publisher but that comes with its own problems
Well, do tell. What is your friends band's name?
Thin Lines, Golden Days is a fantastic album: https://open.spotify.com/album/7KZ2Rp2bp5X3MU3rmu7nwf?si=O1d...
I gave the opening track a listen. It sounds fairly undifferentiated to me. I hope they find success. I am just one data point.
I want to hear something that is simultaneously good and also I have never heard before. Not an easy ask of course.
The idea that the middle class musician ever existed at all is a false premise. Lamenting the loss of something that never existed is pretty ridiculous. "Ahh, remember the good old days when one could make a middle class living as an amateur ski jumper". How can we get back to that? Of course, UBI / communism.
Not false in any way. The life of the middle-income touring performer used to exist and is gone now..
Same with the Midlist Author
Can you name any?
I've known quite a few people who made quite good livings playing 5-nights a week at hotel lounges in BFE. You're not going to recognize any, because they aren't famous, they just made their living going around playing music and weren't super famous. Even the relatively "famous" ones I have worked with (say, marc benno or paul pearcy or jay boy adams) aren't known by folks outside of very small circles.
IME, the consolidation of radio, changes in taste around live music, and the dissolution of paying for recorded music all worked to get rid of that group of folks.
But that doesn't mean that I haven't played with a lot of folks who are now in their 70s and 80s who made a good living playing music for folks.
Thanks for the names that you provided. I'd say these are examples of people that had some success and then pivoted to become session / touring musicians for other (very famous) bands (though one is a Grammy award winner in their own right). I suppose it is possible that there will be fewer people like that in the future. I guess we will see.
Perhaps the artist in the article could similarly pivot. At least, that seems to be the main way to stay in the industry if you are unable (for whatever reason) to attain commercial success.
This is an obvious trolling attempt, but I'll bite. Very simple statistical sample for those interested:
- Go on the wikipedia page for the notable alumni of Berklee College of Music[1]; - Sort by graduation years; - Notice the "early life" snippet on the bio of most musicians from the 1970-2000. - Compare those with the bio from artists from and before such interval. Bonus points for taking in consideration how many musicians past year 2000 come from a family with an already existing musical background.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Berklee_College_of_Mus...
Well, I do mean in the context of the article. I'm not suggesting no one ever played in an orchestra. I'm saying that are vanishingly few middle class touring and recording rock, hip hop, pop and country artists and this has largely always been the case. In this domain you either hit it out of the park or go on to do something else.
I don't really know what the table of Berklee grads is pointing toward. Are you suggesting that this says it is now harder to become a middle class recording / touring artist today than it was in the past? If so, how?
I agree. Entertainment has long been called a "hits based" industry.
A question for the downvoters. How many of your middle class neighbours are recording / touring artists playing original pop, rock, hip hop or country music? Did you have a lot more such neighbours 20 years ago?
20 years ago I knew a bunch of people in their teens and early twenties. Now I know a bunch of people in their 40s and I couldn't tell you what the teens around me are doing. Are you sure you're not just picking up on the fact that you're 20 years older now?
My point is 20 years ago I had zero middle class neighbours that fell into this category and that number is the same today. I suspect those numbers represent most people's experiences as well.
The article is suggesting that there is a delta between the past and the present. My argument is there is no delta. There were always nearly zero people in this category.
This is nonsense. The music business relies on a core of largely unknown session players and arrangers. The successful ones earn a comfortable living. The top players are easily millionaires, because there aren't many people who can learn and perform parts by ear with the right vibe for a headliner stadium or Broadway show in under a week. (Or a weekend, in some cases.)
There are people you've never heard of earning six or seven figures a year from music for ads.
And so on.
The catch is these people are very, very good at what they do. They're not bedroom wannabes.
As for pop - that has always had a complex relationship with management and funding. Everyone assumes you join a band and get famous. But many bands/artists were treated more like investment vehicles or startups, with record companies and sometimes private individuals providing seed funding for careers.
It's a much riskier career than software, where you can be pretty mediocre and make a good living.
But impossible and nonexistent are both spectacularly wrong and absolutely detached from how the industry works.
Looks like about 3/4 of musicians are part time. The average salary of $57k for the full time workers is about $1k over the minimum to be considered middle class. And the unemployment rate is about 18%.
There's no doubt that there are some middle class and higher earners. It seems that most are part time, don't make much and face higher unemployment than many other sectors. Sector growth is alaso very slow. There's a reason that most people's parents don't push them to pursue music careers unless it's as a teacher or if they're exceptional. Same thing for sports - you can make decent money as a college coach or gym teacher, but the proportion of people who play sports that go on to do anything professionally with it is extraordinary small. It's all supply and demand.
The article isn't focused on the plight of the session Broadway player or Orchestral musician (nor artists writing music for ads or movies or acting as a session musician for a headliner act). It isn't clear that this is getting better or worse but is completely orthogonal to the discussion.
Mainstream recording artists (pop, country, R&B, rock, etc.) represent the vast majority of industry revenues. My argument is that middle class musicians have effectively never existed in this space. Just like middle class professional basketball players effectively don't exist. You either win big or do something else.
Any reference that you can point to on the housing shortage being due to preference?
It seems like job location, compensation, average cost of living, and commute would play a fairly large role.
Exactly. Those are preferences.
You can get a decent, 3 bed, 2 bath house for 100k. Just move to some place like Tucumcari, NM. Why not? Oh...right...the same reasons no one else moves to places like that...
Preferences don’t explain why we aren’t building housing where people want to live. Mid rise buildings don’t need to be particularly expensive per square foot. ~11 million for a 50 unit building is 220k / apartment not 100k cheap but way better than what you see near most cites people want to live in. 2 to 3x housing density requires extra transportation infrastructure but it also means being able to support such infrastructure.
Instead walk around most expensive city’s and you see single family dwellings /row houses in sight of high rises / skyscrapers. That’s not economic efficiency that’s people who can afford high housing prices likening the system the way it is.
You need to find a way to convince the owners of that inefficient housing to sell it to a developer so that they can demolish it to build the efficient housing. That will add significantly to the unit economics of the efficient housing.
Legal issues are more of a hindrance.
At the start you might be adding a few million in land costs and building taller, but that quickly deflates the housing market. Pushing people to sell before their homes become ever less valuable. Further cities outlive people, reluctant homeowners eventually die.
City infrastructure similarly has real costs, but an infrastructure tax on every net new unit isn’t going to see anywhere close to current prices.
In most cases it's illegal to build that efficient housing.
Because there aren’t jobs there?
"It seems like job location, compensation, average cost of living, and commute would play a fairly large role."
Are you saying these don't involve preferences?
And a web search will bring up tons of housing preference sources coming various aspects.
https://learn.upright.us/real-estate-investing-blog/a-housin...
Sure, you could argue that some people prefer to not live a destitute life, and that influences the high price of housing. But that is reductive, ignoring a host of other factors, which again, you might be able to boil down to preference (wealthy capitalists prefer to make more money) but again, it's reductive and offers a somewhat shallow perspective and not much to act on.
You would at least be able to act on the true cause rather than chase short term changes that may not even work or won't scale. If it's indicative of a distribution problem, then we should be investigating distribution solutions. If you can't see this connection, then I posit that you might have the shallow perspective.
It seems very disingenuous to suggest needing to live somewhere one can make a living is only a “preference.”
The definition of "make a living" is highly subject to preferences. The vacant houses are in areas where other people live. If those other people can't make a living, then shouldn't we improve the economy in that area rather than ship those people off to more congested areas or leave the homes vacant?
This isn't about any one industry failing, it's about a system designed to funnel value upwards while pretending the rest of us are just not hustling hard enough
I think “design” is the wrong word. Many systems are unjust by default, and that’s certainly true of hit-driven businesses like music. Justice doesn’t happen unless people make it happen, and often, most people don’t care.
For example, lotteries are inherently unjust, making random people wealthy for no reason, and hardly anyone cares. They just hope to win themselves.
Taylor Swift fans don’t care that she makes far more money than other talented musicians who languish in obscurity. They’re going to keep giving her more money. If you told them they shouldn’t because it perpetuates inequality, they wouldn’t get it.
Yes, I think this is broadly following the lines of Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" example in his response to Rawls' A Theory of Justice. If Wilt doesn't want to play for less than $N but is happy to play for $N, and his fans are happy to collectively pay $N to see him play, it's arguably a bit weird for the state to step in and say they shouldn't be allowed to or that Wilt should be compelled to play for free.
They're very different visions of what "justice" means: one focused on snapshots of distribution, one focused on processes.
Interestingly, music wasn't hit-driven in 1920. A person could earn a decent but not lavish middle class living as a musician, through things like performance, teaching, theaters, and so forth.
An example was that Miles Davis grew up in a middle class family -- his dad was a dentist -- who thought that becoming a musician was an OK career.
Sure, there were stars -- for instance in sheet music publishing -- but since then the working-class musician jobs have nearly vanished.
this is true in some urban settings agree. Rural people had barter and fell into patterns of farm labor. A wild guess is that the bar and the church were social magnets where cultural arts and entertainment could be done professionally to some extent. A very large base factor is "humans do culture, how to include monetary compensation for things that people do already" ?
I think lottery is a great analogy to contemporary society. Although those with the winning tickets have done their darndest to convince others that it was skill and hard work that got them the tickets.
How are lotteries inherently unjust? A bad idea maybe, but I see no reason that people shouldn't be allowed to gamble on a die roll or whatever...
Do you think inequality is unjust? They increase inequality, and there’s no possible argument that a lottery winner did anything to deserve their good fortune.
It’s the opposite effect of insurance, where society works to undo the results of bad luck.
Maybe that's what insurance should be. It doesn't seem to be that way now. People build large fancy homes or fancy cars and then off load the risk to insurance. The problem with this is that it tends to increase costs for other in the pool and disincentivizes risk mitigating behavior. If I know that insurance will pay out for my car, then I can drive more aggressively. I want my home to look fancy and be huge instead of being built to survive local natural disasters, but that preference might change if I didn't have insurance.
I get what you're saying, though it is nuanced. For example, no insurance company in its right mind would insure a home in San Francisco against earthquake damage if the home isn't actually built to code in terms of its ability to withstand earthquakes. Similarly, car insurance companies charge way higher premiums for drivers with a history of accidents and tickets for reckless driving.
My point being, yes insurance obviously decreases risk for owners, but since insurance companies are the ones inheriting that financial risk, they also inherit the incentive to ensure that things are being done the right way.
Not really. It does when it comes to stuff like code. But none of that address the larger and fancier homes than if they were not insured. Similarly, if other people are buying much more expensive cars, your liability insurance will increase even if your risk stays the same - the likelihood of occurrence is the same but the cost per occurrence is higher.
Consider life insurance. It's about providing for widows and orphans. Before there was insurance, there were mutual aid societies, because it was very important to society to hedge that risk so that people aren't destitute after an accident.
There's social security as well.
It's unjust in the same sense that some people complain about capitalism being unjust: some people are wealthy who didn't cosmically deserve it, but just got lucky. There is disagreement over in which way they were lucky (random luck, or lucky to have the right parents, education, genes, etc.)
>I think “design” is the wrong word.
it's exactly the right word. Taylor Swift herself is a product. No less artificial than Boy bands and Kpop idol groups. These aren't hit or miss businesses, they're scientifically engineered performances, the music industry is literally that, an industry. Taylor Swift doesn't wake up in her bedroom with disheveled hair writing songs and people just flock around her, every piece of song writing, merch, marketing, and performance is micro-managed by an entire team of people.
And for that reason you can actually design the opposite. You can break up platforms that produce megastars, you can promote local music, local venues and artists, you can make people care and design what kind of artistic culture you want to be in.
Well yes, but isn't it also a search process that discovers new trends? When another kind of performer attracts fans, the music industry will latch onto that trend instead. And that's a function of the music, the promotion, and the audience.
It's true that when they find something that works, it will be exploited.
> It’s easier than ever to make music, and harder than ever to make a living from it
The subhed spells it out. It's a supply and demand world. If it's easy to do things, the supply increases. It's that simple.
That's not to say that the larger system isn't doing what you claim. Just that music is just too easy to make to be valuable.
I'd describe it more as a system designed to enable capital to better purchase assets built by persons without. Taylor Swift sold her early work to someone with capital, who then owned her as the labels owned the artists in the article.
The answer might be then to disallow capital from buying artists so easily. One option, which Canada does partially have on the books, is a concept of non-divestible "artist rights". If fully implemented, Taylor Swift would be incapable of selling away her works fully, always retaining a degree of control. This would no doubt reduce the value of art but would keep control in the hands of artists. So when the artist feels dissatisfied, they can always walk away no matter what contact they have signed earlier in their career.
NerdCubed did a video recently about similar experiences when publishing a book.
I would argue the system is designed for efficiency. Economic solutions to this problem are about introducing legally-mandated inefficiencies, like limiting competition or artificially increasing labor costs
Efficiency for extracting money from poor people to mega corporations? Seems to me there isn't really a lot of competition left since theres a handful of main players that just buy out smaller competitors.
The poor are richer than ever under the system. They have clean running water and not just light but televisions.
> They have clean running water
They actually don't. Water is contaminated at various levels in many places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
Nothing to do with rich or poor - they share the same water.
The rich tend to avoid living in poor communities.
Water systems generelly cover the whole city, often more than one city in a MSA, not just a community. There are community water systems but most are bigger.
[flagged]
Most of them don't even own homes.
there are rich who don't own their own homes either. Often renting is the choice a mythical rational ecconomic actor would choose.
But minimal determination over their own lives. Thank God for cheap LCDs, though.
A lot more than ever before. There are no slaves. they have many options - not alwasy good options but there are options.
Having to point out that the middle and lower class aren’t slaves isn’t the win you think it is.
They have clean running water because of the ordinary people who work to provide it and maintain the pipes.
They have light and television because of the ordinary working people who work at and maintain electricity plants and design, sell, assemble electrical products.
These things exist despite the billionaire leeches not because of them.
> like limiting competition
I didn't get your point, but we certainly need more competition, not less.
The root of the problem is that the rules of the economy are unfair.
By analogy, try playing a game of monopoly but enter the game after a few rounds have already been played. Exorbitant housing prices are an example.
Another problem is that while it is fine if hardworking people make more money, these people can use that money __against__ people who made different life choices, in various ways, consciously and unconsciously.
We have to acknowledge that the system is broken, and it is starting to show.
This doesn’t make sense… people have always been able to use their time, effort, and resources against someone else?
Since the beginning of society I imagine.
Yes, but whether that becomes a problem to society depends on a number of parameters. One of them is the existing level of wealth inequality.
If someone is grinding you down… what does it matter whether they are 10x or 100x wealthier?
Even perfect equals can wreck each other’s lives completely, in legal ways too, if they commit their all to it.
Not only that there's already one in place (earned income tax credit) and Alaska has one for oil revenue. We can just increase the EICT.
We already have a pretty burdensome welfare system, it might be that we've gone too far towards UBI to make middle class musicians practical.
> [...] a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high.
What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off? We can 'solve' inequality by just destroying everything the rich have, but that won't make anyone better off.
Btw, the absolute living standards of all members of society, including the least well off, have never been better. And that's true for almost any society you care to look at on our globe. (Removing eg those currently at war, that weren't at war earlier.)
There is so much research on the problems of inequality. "The Spirit Level" is one book. (e.g. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/the-spirit-level/)
The problems of inequality go well beyond living standards. E.g. political control in a very unequal society gets concentrated in a few people.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(Wilkinson_an...
Especially the failures to replicate.
1. Any research of any note will get criticism. (E.g. see responses to Picketty.)
2. From Wikipedia it appears they responded to all the substantial criticism. It also mentions an independent study largely agreeing with the results.
3. This is one book amongst a mountain of research, and there are problems with inequality that go beyond those the book mentions.
I agree that Wikipedia wasn't the best source to go for criticism: Wikipedia is very sympathetic to the claims like in the book, so the criticism section is very weak sauce.
It is indeed noble that the authors responded to the criticism, but unlike what Wikipedia seems to imply, they didn't manage to rescue their argument.
See https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/th... from another comment.
A blog post referencing another blog post doesn’t seem to rise to the level of total disregard for the original study. But maybe we can try Wikipedia again.
a book is not a study a either.
Good points, he seems to be in to something in the health field, but the analysis was incomplete and flawed. Given the importance of the health results, perhaps someone could build on top of that and build an improved study?
See also 'The Spirit Level Delusion' by Christopher Snowdon. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/th...
> And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off?
The two are connected. You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), or transfer it from the rich to the poor. In both cases the rich become less rich in relative terms. It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant.
> You can either transfer more wealth to the poorer people without taxing the rich (lets say by helicopter money), [...]
Helicopter money transfers real wealth from the people who previously held cash.
It creates nominal wealth, but not real wealth.
> It should also make intuitive sense - if the rich (lets say top 5%) hold 95% of wealth it means there is less for everyone else - less wealth that is because the resources like land, apartments and good education are finite and not abundant.
Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea.
That's basically just the idea from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44411538 inverted. Many people have a hard time seeing that wealth can increase, but it's pretty easy to see that total wealth can decrease: I can set fire to my piano, and no one else gets any better because of it.
How does taking some ones second mansion away to help feed struggling family decrease happiness? If there is a net decrease, the rich person needs to examine their priorities.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
> Let's invert that: if I make everyone's lives 10% more miserable, but the lives of the richest 1% a whopping 20% more miserable, that will have decreased inequality. But it's not a good idea.
You are conflating two different things, wealth and misery.
Wealth is about material resources not misery or happiness. This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich. Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes and their twentieth estate make them "more miserable" sure, probably, but it also secures the independence of the people you make that house available to (rather than make them permanent wage slaves to the landed class that just scoops up homes that they don't materially need need to extract rents etc).
> This is about giving more people access to more material resources by taking away some of the exclusive access to those resource by the rich.
You realize most of this wealth is tied up in stocks and other assets that anyone can purchase, right?
> Will preventing the uber rich families from buying their seventeenth fleet of housing complexes
But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?
> and their twentieth estate
And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
> But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?...
One of the bigger ways this plays out as opposed to your example is: Tons of property is locked up as short term vacation rentals that are only used a tiny percent of the time and only by the rich. There's a spectrum of how rich but we know the bottom 50% almost never use them for example
Similarly the amount of resources locked up in industries that 99% of the time only cater to the very rich is quite a lot and more importantly the trajectory is going more and more that direction.
You could have a world where the work is done mostly by robots and a few million rich people use the world as their playground and then what happens to everyone else?
> Similarly the amount of resources locked up in industries that 99% of the time only cater to the very rich is quite a lot and more importantly the trajectory is going more and more that direction.
Sources?
In any case, what you say seems to suggest that consumption taxes would be the way to go.
> Tons of property is locked up as short term vacation rentals that are only used a tiny percent of the time and only by the rich.
Im guessing you don’t know how much property this is. It’s probably under 5% and so has very little effect on the market.
I'm guessing neither knows. So 5% is just another WAG.
Here in my college town, the new townhouses in prestigious locations are dominated by football-game-day occupation by the rich. So there's that.
> Tons of property is locked up as short term vacation rentals
You might not want to dig too closely into who exactly owns all these short term vacation rentals. There's a non-trivial number of people who aren't conventionally what we picture as being "wealthy" who own a lot of them. It was a very popular Covid-era life hack to buy a house at an absurdly low interest rate and rent it out. And that's not getting into people who just managed to buy a house at the right time. For example, I'm just a software engineer in a MCOL area but I bought my first house in the early 2000s and paid it off a little under 20 years later. I sold to fund the next house, but I could've easily bought something more modest and rented the old one out. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
> that are only used a tiny percent of the time and only by the rich. There's a spectrum of how rich but we know the bottom 50% almost never use them for example
Are you under the impression that you have to be fabulously wealthy to rent an AirBNB for the weekend?
Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily.
It doesn't matter that "anyone can purchase them". If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount.
> But ARE the likes of Bezos and Musk actually buying housing complexes in the first place, nevermind ones that anyone who isn’t already rich are able to afford?
I didn't mention either of these people. There are plenty of people not in the limelight that do precisely the things I'm talking about, often through banks and companies that they run—I can have my investment firm buy property and increase my salary off the extracted rents and it achieves the same thing.
> And who but the extremely rich would be able to buy these estates in the first place?
Exactly. You just restated the problem with inequality. It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources. Further they can they use this exclusivity to further entrench their positions.
> If you have N dollars and I have Nx1000I can buy more stock than you. I can also diversify better than you, I simply have more options, more power, etc. Unless I am a total idiot or you get absurdly lucky and effectively win the lotto, my greater amount of initial capital will go further than your small amount.
And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist.
> Certain forms of stock are effectively liquid. This means that you can turn around and leverage them to buy material resources quite easily.
Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation!
> It gives a small class of people exclusive access to important material resources.
Look, no matter how little income inequality is, you're gonna have to be rich to say, buy a building in Manhattan or a house in some similarly coveted area.
I broadly agree with everything you say.
> Sure, but this isn't the infinite money glitch people seem to think it is. The loan and its interest have to get repaid with... money! That's first taxed! And anything purchased is... subject to taxation!
Interestingly, my broker lets me just pile up the interest and doesn't expect me to pay anything back, but only as long as my overall portfolio is worth comfortably more than my debt.
Of course, if I ever want to actually get at all my money, I'll need to pay the debt off.
Btw, leveraging your stock portfolio isn't all that different from a mortgage on your house. But people seem to be much more confused about the effects of the former than the latter. It seems to be easier for people to understand that a mortgage ain't an infinite money machine.
> And, so what? This just sounds like whining that people in this world who have more money than you exist. I'm sure there's a lot of people in this world who would hold this exactly same argument against you ("you have N dollars, but I have N/1000"). You're not denied the opportunity to build wealth with what money you DO have just because Bezos and Musk et al exist.
I don't have a problem with differences in wealth. My problem is with (a) differences so extreme that they border on the inhumane (we arguably have enough resources amassed to end world hunger, yet people still starve. Why?) (b) People are fed the lie that this system is purely meritocratic. That is plainly untrue. That was my point about the relative "distance" your money can go. If you are born into a wealthy family, you can basically live a zero-labor life and continue to reap rewards, generate more income, gather more resources for yourself, concentrate capital. When your origin is the greatest determining factor in wealth, it's a gross lie to suggest to day laborers that if they just "work hard" they too can strike it rich.
Sure, I would agree that under the current system manhattan remains unaffordable. But this is not an essential property of manhattan, as you seem to think. It is a side effect of the current economic structure we have. Alternative structures would lead to significantly more affordable living in the city. In fact the NYC dems just voted for a mayoral candidate who wants to establish such an alternative. People who think like you are increasingly becoming the minority, and it's because it's glaringly and exceedingly obvious that there are massive problems of wealth distribution in the current system. You can honestly identify that there are issues and ask for solutions without being anti capitalist.
People get so caught up in morality when it comes to wealth, which is absurd. As if somehow wanting some of Bezos money to be redistributed so that it can feed people instead of paying for 500mil dollar yatchs is a moral affront. How about we instead focus on the moral affront of underpaying workers, having them the piss in bottles in warehouses, gaming the system by incorporating offshore, the list is endless. It's hilarious that anyone would defend the rights of these robber barons. You've got to be either seriously brainwashed or an extreme ideologue to think that there are no issues with inequality today. Even staunch capitalists are starting to admit there are problems. Its simple systems dynamics. Any system that maximizes singular variables is necessarily unstable and heading toward collapse.
You can of course create wealth in such a way that inequality stays the same. Not all types of wealth are finite for practical purposes.
But, if empirically our current system for net wealth creation tends to also produce wealth concentration, it makes sense to consider ways of modifying the system to mitigate some of the wealth concentration while maintaining as much of the wealth creation as possible.
The target you should look for is how much wealth gets created for the least well-off (or for some low percentile representative person). Just don't worry about what the rich people doing at all. No need to punish them.
Where is the "wealth created for the least well off" going to come from?
Necessarily, that must be wealth that did' go to the rich instead (it could have!). So, necessarily, you are "punishing" them by doing so.
You mainly seem to be against some kind of hypothetical robinhoodesque style redistribution because you worry it's unfair to the rich. Any solution, though, will have to take this shape, whether it targets the existing wealth or wealth generated going forward. It's all about redistribution of access no matter how you slice
You don't need to be so protective of the rich. They are doing just fine and they have plenty of resource and mechanisms in place to protect themselves. If the world's wealthiest people were made even just a tiny bit less wealth by redistribution of assets they would still be living like absolute kings.
> Where is the "wealth created for the least well off" going to come from?
Well, mostly where everyone's wealth is coming from: from the fruits of their own labour.
> You mainly seem to be against some kind of hypothetical robinhoodesque style redistribution because you worry it's unfair to the rich.
No, I haven't started worrying about fairness, yet. No, I'm afraid that a tax system designed by what sounds good instead of what works will leave the poor even worse off.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence for an example: who you officially levy the taxes on isn't necessarily the person shouldering the economic burden.
Only tiny fraction of a billionaire's wealth tends to be the fruit of their personal labor. It's the labor of their employees and machines that create the wealth. To my understanding, this is broadly accepted.
Now, billionaires do supply a different key ingredient to the wealth creation - risk. Without investment and risk, wealth cannot be created. In terms of $ investment, billionaires take on the vast majority of the risk and deserve the bulk of the rewards, the argument goes. Workers take on far less risk with their guaranteed* paycheck .
But which is the bigger risk? A billionaire's $100,000,000? Or your home, your health, and your retirement savings were you to lose your job in a bad market?
I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
> I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
Please feel free to start your own company or cooperative.
Working on it ;)
> But which is the bigger risk? A billionaire's $100,000,000? Or your home, your health, and your retirement savings were you to lose your job in a bad market?
This parallels the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, which states that with extreme wealth, you can't buy any more to get more utility or happiness.
In a way, the risk phenomenon picks up where that phenomenon leaves off, where the need for normal "utility" gives way to the desire for amassing power over society at large.
The mistake they make is not realizing how much of their wealth and welfare relies on the welfare of the masses.
> I'm interested in company structures that incentivize distributing risk, profit, and power across a larger group than we tend to see in modern companies.
Ironically this is a tiny bit of what we saw with employee stock options in the early days of the internet industry, reflected in the historically outsized power and voice of workers. Arguably, that is a part of the rationale behind the big tech layoffs - to put labor back in its place.
You clearly believe you're very objective and applying very "rational" thinking to the problem. It's about the dollar value of the income of the least well-off, so what are these stupid people even talking about inequality? Don't they realise making a poor person 10% worse off and Bezos 11% worse off reduces inequality but lowers the floor (the pedestrian argument you've made several times in this thread)?
But please consider that the problem is slightly (i.e. a lot) more complicated than you think. Economics is a very very hard discipline and perhaps more closely related to philosophy than the natural sciences. There have been countless books written on the topic of inequality by people smarter than you or me, so it's highly it's all so simple as your dismissive "just do X" line imagines it to be.
A simple, almost trivial observation: very high inequality of wealth also means very high inequality of power, meaning the rich elite can and will influence the political process to enrich themselves further at the expense of the "low percentile" less well-off, which will be denied political power. This is one example of why you should care about inequality.
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Wealth redistribution has this positive effect: If you take $1000 from a billionaire and give it to a very poor person, total happiness increases.
It also has a negative effect, high level of redistribution can inhibit production.
The optimal level of redistribution depends on what you're optimizing, it's usually a mix of societal happiness and some notion of fairness. (I personally would want to optimize happiness and prosperity.)
> But please consider that the problem is slightly (i.e. a lot) more complicated than you think. Economics is a very very hard discipline [...]
Yes, and that's why I am saying that it's far from an obvious conclusion that making rich people worse off is a good thing for poor people.
And once you admit that this ain't trivial, you can look at topics like deadweight losses or tax incidence.
Different tax and redistribution system have different effects. It's not just 'more tax = more revenue to redistribute'.
For example, I actually think you can drive overall tax rates (eg as percentage of GDP) a lot higher than they are today in most countries without harming the economy, _if_ you switch to something as efficient as land value taxes for the vast majority of your government revenue (and lower other taxes). Property taxes are a second best approximation.
In contrast, capital gains taxes and income taxes are less efficient. Tariffs are even worse (by a large margin!), even if they could theoretically raise some revenue. Stamp duties or other taxes on transactions are also pretty bad. And silly things like price controls just hurt the economy without raising any revenue at all.
But that's all vastly simplified. As you suggest, there's lots of theory and practice you can investigate for the actual effects. They might also differ in different times and places.
> There have been countless books written on the topic of inequality by people smarter than you or me, so it's highly it's all so simple as your dismissive "just do X" line imagines it to be.
That's why I'm saying exactly the opposite: I'm arguing against the naive 'just tax the rich'.
> What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
I'd like the one small enough that I won't die from my (treatable) first major medical event due to being unable to fund 100% of treatment costs.
I'd also like one small enough that me and the kids didn't spend most of the 2010s in hunger-level poverty.
That'd be a start.
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with equality at all. It's about the absolute level of prosperity of yourself (and presumably everyone else).
So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned.
If absolute prosperity is what matters, how is the US the richest country in the world, while being pretty much the only one where medical bankruptcy is a thing?
In poorer countries, instead of medical bankruptcy, there just isn't medicine available. The poor in sub-saharan africa are not receiving first class government funded medical care.
This is a total red herring. We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa. As Americans who want to fix your country, you should be looking at countries with similar standards of living, such as every single European country. You can even pick the rich ones, like the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, or Germany.
The alternative to the current situation in the US is not abject poverty.
The US isn't the richest country in the world (per capita). What makes you think so? However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.
And in any case, I'm saying absolute prosperity of individual people matters. Not the average per capita absolute prosperity of a country.
So people who go into medical bankruptcy in the US are obviously not individually rich. And I hope you and me agree, that if you could find a way to make them better off, that would be a good thing?
Whereas if you found a way to make them worse off by 20%, but make Mr Zuckerberg worse off by 50%, that would not be advisable, even if it technically decreases inequality.
It's the richest country in absolute terms, and the richest per-capita if you exclude small countries.
As a side note, it really shouldn't be possible to edit comments two hours after they've been posted and after they've had replies. Particularly without showing any indication of that.
> However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.
Better to use the median, because the average is heavily skewed by the ultra-rich.
No one is suggesting to "make Mr Zuckerberg worse off".
The inequality problem is about access to material resources. Money is just an abstraction. No one is seriously suggesting to refuse zuckerberg access to good things on principle or to just diminish and not redistribute his wealth, that's preposterous.
The point is that access to capital is access to resources. The people that hoard capital necessarily end up hoarding important resources and they use this imbalance to then extract further capital from others and further their position, thus in turn gives them power. The problem is all about bringing more balance to this situation so that we avoid a return to feudalism in which a handful of people have control over all the resources and power and everyone is is basically just beholden to their whims.
How does 'hoarding' capital look like? What do you mean by that?
No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists.
The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
The top 1% aren't sitting on a pile of gold in a dragon's den, their wealth is mostly invested. The amount of money Jeff Bezos owns in houses and boats is small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon; that money in amazon's hands is absolutely cycling through the economy.
> small in comparison to the amount of his wealth that is represented by stock in amazon
That wealth should also be taxed.
What makes stock ownership somehow holy that should be protected from taxation?
We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
Stock ownership isn't protected from taxation: there's capital gains tax to be paid (in many countries).
> We should stop conflating what a company generates as a consequence of their activity with the glorified gambling of the stock market.
Well, that might be a valid point for some people, but it's pointless for Zuckerberg or Bezos or Bill Gates or even Musk: those guys have been mostly holding their companies' stocks for ages. They don't buy and sell all the time. No 'glorified gambling the stock market' there.
In any case, I brought up stock ownership as a concrete example of wealth that doesn't just site 'idle' in a vault somewhere. It's a claim on a productive enterprise that is only worth something because it serves customers and employs people etc.
I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality.
The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.)
> And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists.
I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure.
UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off.
> The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se.
Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation.
However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
Your analysis is spot on. UBI funded by taxes is redistribution.
Is that a bad thing? It would obviously have some negative effects. We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain.
The upside though? My hunch is that making most people feel secure enough to risk starting/joining businesses is fuel for a strong and innovative economy. The fact that so few of us are able to take those risks is a constraint on growth.
> We'd immediately see damage to luxury brands and yacht sales. The art markets would crash. Stock markets would feel some pain.
How do you make these confident predictions?
I think it would depend a lot on how the UBI is, and exactly how you design the taxes to finance it (and how high those taxes are going to be).
My assumption is that UBI is a significant transfer of wealth from the richest to the rest. Isn't that the whole point? Exactly how to structure the taxes that pay for it is naturally a key question.
Given that, it's pretty safe to assume markets that cater exclusively to the ultra-wealthy will be harmed by reduced demand as their customer base shrinks. Higher tax rates will also exert downward pressure ob stock values as companies make less profit and investors tighten their belts. (Especially if there's a wealth tax.)
> UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme.
Yes. That is desirable.
> However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
And those too should be taxed. If it is wealth, it should be taxed.
I keep significant fraction of my wealth in eg my kidneys and healthy organs. Should they be taxed?
How about taxing Brad Pitt for his good looks?
> However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
Sorry, I don't understand what problem you are seeing from people owning shares in eg publicly traded companies.
Not a problem. But above a certain threshold it should be considered taxable wealth too.
Don't be silly. Smoking one cigarette is generally not problematic. Smoking thousands will tend to give you lung cancer.
Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't own stocks. People are arguing that asset concentration taken to extremes is like smoking too many cigs: so enough and you force bad outcomes on society and the economic system.
> We can 'solve' inequality by just destroying everything the rich have
This is "all or nothing" fallacy thinking.
> What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
Economic inequality small enough to not be the root cause of the particular problem you are interested in.
Well, that definition only makes sense to someone who thinks that economic inequality is a root cause of any problems.
The economy is not a static thing in which the same goods and services are offered independent of the wealth distribution. The same work is not done.
When wealth is concentrated, prices cease to aggregate information and preferences from across the whole society. Instead they represent whatever stupid whim some clique of investors has developed. As a result you get massive malinvestments in speculative bullshit while basic things decay. It's the Politburo but dumber.
This determines the physical environment you live in, the services offered on your street, and the stuff you do at your job.
Has Bill Gates bought up all avocados on the market so far? Or anything ridiculous like what you seem to imply would happen with concentrated wealth?
Have you seen how much money we are shoveling into 'AI'
To be clear, confiscating everything Musk, Theil, Zuckerberg and Bezos have absolutely would make my life better off. Think about the amount of political meddling by Musk in the past year alone, things he could never do if he weren't so rich.
Trump isn't rich (or at least wasn't rich before he became president for the first time), and managed to do lots of meddling just fine.
If anything, I'd like rich people (in general) to play more of a role. I'd take Bloomberg or Romney over the popular candidates any day.
The reason inequality is a problem is very simple.
As inequality increases at scale it means that an increasingly concentrated group has more and more capital. What do they do with that capital? They buy assets, they are basically forced to do so by design.
What happens when they buy assets? They capitalize those assets. An apartment unit now becomes a home others can rent but not purchase.
Rinse and repeat until eventually wealth is so concentrated that the ability for any other individuals to access assets is basically zero. This means those individuals cannot build capital or ultimately wealth and it also means that, even if more resource become readily available, more people cannot afford them. They have to do 2x today what they did yesterday to an achieve the same amount of stability even if their "standard of living" has increased because of a wider swath of goods and services.
Honestly at this point I think that anyone who doesn't see inequality as a major driver of contemporary problems is simply not paying attention to the USA or must not live there. Countries in which it is less of a problem basically only mitigate it by having a state that can provide essentials to effectively prevent the capitaled class from taking them away from people (eg healthcare, as you mention).
Economics is all about the balance of who has access to what resources. We cannot just generate resources and capital out of thin air. One person getting more necessarily means another gets less. Period.
Compare and contrast https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-t...
lol. Like many of Scott Alexander's essays, this is bad argumentation in nice window dressing, as well as a slight apologia for racism.
There are so many problems with this essay that it's hard to know where to begin, but two major ones are that (1) his reading comprehension sucks, (2) the major flaw in his line of argument is merely hand waved away—it relies on a fundamental premise that mobility of people in the south was zero after the civil war and that the civil war destroying an entire industry would have had zero effect (this is the part he hand waves away at the end of the article after making his idiotic apology for continued racism based on one solitary citation) As usual, it's an article making people unschooled in the actual practice of rigorous academic research to buy into bad ideas .
Anyway, that's all beside the point. A specific article countering a single claim against reparations has basically very little to do with the topic at hand unless you can prove the very specific set of dynamics that is analyzed in that case (a) applies globally, and (b) still applies today.
This style of argument is equivalent to saying "look i found one rock that was purple so all rocks must be purple". It has basically no relevance as far as I'm concerned.
the healthcare situation sucks. provide universal healthcare and you might have a point
I don't live in the US. We have a very different helthcare system where I live, and it's working well.
But again: providing universal healthcare is all about giving (poor) people more prosperity. It has nothing to do with inequality by itself.
If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
> If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
No, because we outnumber Mark Zuckerberg by more than 10 fold
Anyway, I would argue that having guaranteed healthcare is 10293762397697x better than not having guaranteed healthcare
> Anyway, I would argue that having guaranteed healthcare is 10293762397697x better than not having guaranteed healthcare
Sure, healthcare is nice. I see no disagreement.
> > If tomorrow Mr Zuckerberg got 100x better healthcare, but everyone else only got 10x better healthcare, that would fix the problem you mentioned, but would technically make inequality worse.
> No, because we outnumber Mark Zuckerberg by more than 10 fold
Well, fix the numbers any way you feel like. Eg say Mr Zuckerberg gets better off by whatever amount the rest of us together get better (eg in terms of healthcare) plus 10% extra.
Mark Zuckerberg would in fact need to have 8 billion times better healthcare than me for your argument to matter
I don't know anyone who really thinks that absolute inequality is the problem. people need a high floor - there is no inherent reason to want to lower the ceiling of wealth/benefits. but since there's no such thing as free lunch, we need to calculate by how much each % of ceiling that is lowered raises the floor. If we can reduce the ceiling by 10% and raise the floor by 100%, then that's worthwhile.
The hard part is calculating the benefits. There are non-linear effects when you try to predict the benefits of having a healthy and educated population, although the benefit should be enormous.
On the other hand it is very easy to calculate the downside of people not being wage-slaves: not needing to accept bottom wages, having time to understand what's actually going on in the world, organizing for or against particular causes, etc..
I'm saying that we need to be careful that our obsession to obstruct the rich doesn't leave the masses worse off.
> If we can reduce the ceiling by 10% and raise the floor by 100%, then that's worthwhile.
I'm afraid that lowering the ceiling by 10% might lower the floor by 10%, too.
absolute living standards are very unequal
> What economic inequality would you deem small enough?
> And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off?
Answer to both those questions, simplifying massively: the most prosperous period of capitalism in the past 200 years was also that where there was the smallest levels of inequality.
The point of view that you must only look at the overall floor is terribly short-sighted (and even then, the lower and middle classes have become WORSE off in the past 40 years!). The massive increases in wealth have been going overwhelmingly to the pockets of the very rich; this is bad in itself, irrespective of the overall GDP growth or whatever.
Read Pikkety's books and you will understand.
> Answer to both those questions, simplifying massively: the most prosperous period of capitalism in the past 200 years was also that where there was the smallest levels of inequality.
You mean today? Today is the most prosperous period of all of world history. Or what period are you talking about?
Global inequality is also near all-time lows, thanks to China, India and the rest of Asia mostly catching up to the rich western countries. Alas, Africa is still quite poor, but they are working on it.
> The point of view that you must only look at the overall floor is terribly short-sighted (and even then, the lower and middle classes have become WORSE off in the past 40 years!).
In what sense?
> The massive increases in wealth have been going overwhelmingly to the pockets of the very rich; this is bad in itself, irrespective of the overall GDP growth or whatever.
Why?
> Read Pikkety's books and you will understand.
See eg https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/th...
> it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more.
Or, instead of handing out more and more money from the state, try to introduce dynamism again. Try to reduce the amount of times that YouTube takes videos or accounts down for example.
You're conflating three very different types of jobs here.
Minimum wage hourly jobs like grocery baggers need to be able to survive off a 40-hour week, and it's a societal problem if they can't.
Taxi drivers are essentially sole proprietors who set their own hours and accept higher risk for a higher payoff. Demand and supply will calibrate themselves unless the government distorts the market (eg. taxi medallions).
Musicians and actors are and have always been in a brutal power law market where all the wealth accrues to the 0.1% at the top of the heap. This drives exploitation since people will do anything to get to the top, but at the end of the day society does not need them the way it needs taxi drivers or grocery baggers and there is no economic rationale for subsidizing them.
The grocery bagger on a zero hour contract needs to be able to survive when not given 40 hours. Also the 5% unemployed people in a 'full employment' economy need to be able to survive when sacrificed to control inflation.
> at the end of the day society does not need them the way it needs taxi drivers or grocery baggers
This is absolutely true. In my country psychologists are complaining about "low" wages and tough conditions, and yet people go study psychology in droves because they "find it interesting." There's only so much demand for any one thing and if you decide because you enjoy something you want to make that your career well tough shit, there's thousands like yourself and nobody wants more of what you supply. So you can keep it as a hobby, but to make a living you have to provide something that people want and need, otherwise you're just a leech on society. It's funny that the ones complaining about these issues are usually the people who care about the social aspect of things, yet there's absolutely nothing social about demanding money without contributing anything that others actually need.
I totally agree. There's the inequality side of things were many working people are still in a precarious position. Then there's also the burnout / job conditions side of things where people can't persist in their roles without slowly losing their mental health. Think about nurses, police officers, teachers etc. It can be solvable by making their work weeks shorter and/or by increasing the numbers of staff per student and many other things we can do - that are deemed too expensive now but can become realistic if we distribute the wealth in a more equal way.
Usually when people in western countries think about UBI, they are assuming that money from people richer than themselves will trickle down to them. What they don't realize is, globally, money will trickle out of their pockets to the rest of the world. Basically they are looking for a constrained hypothetical situation in which free money flows to them.
Cultural investment in education is my take. People should be enabled to study for career mobility in highly regulated environments.
Getting this and that cert. is costly, but even things like hands-om experience in new domains is inaccessible if you don't have the cash flow.
100% this. I don’t know how long we have to go on pushing at the “wealth will trickle down” door to discover it’s utter bullshit and always has been. The answer isn’t private companies, because they’re continuing to take the piss and make a small number of people incredibly wealthy at the expense of the majority.
It’s never a popular thing to say on HN but the country the typifies inequality most starkly is the US - and it’s also the one with the biggest set of problems: huge issues with drug use, obesity, widespread unhappiness, simmering resentment, a divided nation. The countries that are getting this right (and by right I mean GDP, happiness, heath, pretty much any meaningful index of “a good life”) are the ones that fund public services, healthcare, education, etc through higher taxes.
~ braces for downvotes ~
And yet everyone wants to move to the US. Weird, isn't it?
This is far from the truth in Europe.
UBI seems inevitable with the progress of AI and automation -- but transitioning to it will need a catalyst to break through the wall of resistance to make that happen. Covid was such a catalyst, and at least in the US it was so poorly managed on the distribution of funds it did not help shift the mindset to support UBI.
That's a pity, because it could have done so brilliantly. The catch is that we need a government that is not corrupt and incompetent to administer that process and that's exactly what was in charge at the time.
So while it can't happen now it would be worth exploring what that tipping point might be and how to make sure it serves the people its supposed to.
Acknowledging inequality won't change the economics of a midlist artist, because you can't compel people to buy music they don't want to buy.
UBI would introduce massive inequality between those who work and those who don't. Much tension would arise.
It would do the opposite.
It would set a minimum income that everyone would know they had.
Whatever work people did would add to that. It would encourage the unemployed to start businesses, or do casual work as they would keep all the money (rather than having their benefits cut).
How would this differ from the tension we have today between the employed and the unemployed? The latter are already heavily stigmatized (dole bludgers, welfare queens, etc).
a definitive assertion offered without elaboration
How would it increase inequality?
those who choos 40hr work weeks have similar earnings and quality of life as someone who sits at home all day on UBI.
Absolutely not. Our current system is closer to that because you lose benefits as your income increases, to the point where in some case it's possible to get a raise and end up worse off. With UBI (assuming it replaces most means-tested benefits), you're always better off earning more.
No? Everyone would get the same amount, and then the people working 40h would get more than the people not doing anything.
Why do you think the word "universal" is in the phrase "universal basic income"?
then it will never happen, of course. keep fantasizing
But we've had a way of addressing that since the year dot, it's called progressive taxation but no, that appears beyond the pale nowadays.
UBI was first piloted by Richard Nixon. These ideas are not fanciful. America has moved so hard to the right that anything slightly left of center seems radical and communist.
> Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high.
I actually read the article before going into the comment section, and your comment was surprising and baffling by how detached from the content of the post it was.
There are plenty of exploitation arguments made in it, but if you read the article is income inequality one of them? Well, no.
> It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more.
I think that this conclusion is far-fetched if your starting point is the actual article. The music business is notorious for being virtually impossible to make a living, even if you are an international act. There were plenty of examples from decades ago up until now of musicians from popular international bands with packed international tours not being able to afford to quit their day job to make ends meet. If your income comes from selling tickets to the public, sometimes directly, and you still cannot generate a livable income, the problem is not income inequality. The problem is that there is not enough demand for what you're selling to make it a viable business.
I mean, if your primary source of income is playing shows and not enough people want to spend money to attend them, why do you think the fact that some people earn way more than you is even relevant?
> Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.
Here is a though experiment: does your assertion hold valid if you replace "store baggers" and "taxi drivers" with "contortionists" or "jugglers"? Because while "store baggers" and "taxi drivers" aren't exactly activities associated with upper middle class income levels, they are activities that most people are coerced to have because they have no alternative to make a living. Musicians are another story altogether, and associated with people pursuing their dreams. In fact, there is that age old cliche about third generation wealth being artists and academics because their exceptional wealth allowed them to pursue their dreams.
Universal basic income is a bit impractical just now - give everyone free money and who will do the jobs that need doing? - but shortly will be very practical when robots/AI will do the jobs that need doing.
No, people always want more money.
Why do so many rich people who could afford to retire work hard to make more? Why does hardly anyone on a high hourly rate work the minimum hours they need for an adequate income?
There have been numerous trials of UBI and I have yet to heard of one that showed people worked significantly less when given it.
I kind of figure people will work on things that don't really need doing like putting on music festivals etc. while the robots will do the essential work like grow food and take out the trash. Maybe I'm being optimistic. Although I have lived places where things worked a bit like that like when I was in South Africa a while ago with the blacks doing the less desirable jobs usually. So maybe like that but with robots?
my only problem with it is "give everyone 1400/mo and suddenly prices will rise by an effective rate of 1400/mo". I don't see any argument to counter that. I want it to work though.
The only way I could see it working is having a 2nd currency, comparable to SNAP benefits or housing vouchers, that is independent of the dollar (and not stigmatized either). Then let the dollar value of rents and food fluctuate as they may, but require that the UBI currency is accepted for some fraction of housing and food (and the minimum housing is sufficient to be covered 100% by UBI). Then cover the spread through taxing the corporations who wish to do business in that state. If the greedy Private-Equity owned corporation wants to jack up the rent, they can get their UBI tax jacked up also. If they want to quit the state, they can sell their assets to a local resident who wants to build a small business being a property manager.
No, I do not think it will have as strong an inflationary effect as that because the money would come from increasing tax or reducing other expenditure so the net amount the government is injecting into the economy (less what it takes out by way of tax) would not change.
if you can convince the people to vote for higher taxes paid by corporations or ultra-wealthy, I'm all for it.
...in America. There are countries that actually fight the oligarchs and tax them until the wealth inequality becomes lesser.
Of course there's no silver bullet and high progressive taxes for the mega-wealthy do have other negative effects. Like people being less motivated to strive. Less capital to invest and less competitive companies born.
But billionaires paying less taxes than the guy sweeping floors at the local mall is absurd. Once you reach a certain threshold of wealth, your taxes actually start going down.
There is actually no sense to put high taxes on ultra wealthy people. They have all means to avoid payment of income/profit taxes at all, no matter of the current tax rate.
That's why poor people pay the highest percentage of their income: they have no choice, no ways to do tax evasion.
You’re essentially saying that rich people are above the law. If that’s the case, we should fix that first.
They're not above the law, but they have the choice of which legal jurisdiction they reside in.
US taxes incomes of their citizens globally, so, no matter where you reside, you're still subject to US tax legislation. The only way to get away from it is to renounciate US citizenship, which I imagine the rich may not be ready to do.
And so we arrive at the old insight that the fight against inequality needs to be global.
But I think you underestimate the possibilities. You can just design the law to make taxation a prerequisite for doing business. That's what the EU is (trying to) do, and it seems to work well.
Doing business in the EU and the US is a lot more profitable than not doing business there, even if you pay taxes. That's kind of the point.
If people don't want billionaires, they should quit their addiction to billionaires products.
"I hate Jeff Bezos, by I'll be damned if I have to give up same day delivery $6 Chinese mugs. The local made ones are $40!"
That's right. Look at Trump and his friends.
Also you have no means to change the law. But ultra rich people can push/promote "correct" people to the government or to be elected. Like Musk did.
> That's why poor people pay the highest percentage of their income
The key word here is income. “Wealth” and “income” tend to be conflated by ostensibly intelligent people who should know better. If I’m granted a million dollars in stock but draw a $20K salary, I’m “wealthy” but not “paying my fair share” because I’ve hardly earned any income for the year.
Is it right? From my knowledge stock compensation is considered as income and is taxed.
But I got your point. There are ways to be wealthy, have a rich lifestyle but report no taxable income/profit.
What you actually want is to have a wealth tax like in Switzerland. 0.05-0.3% annual tax based on net assets.
Realizing stock value (selling stock) is considered income.
In fact, note how some European countries tax wealth from pretty low amounts: Sometimes under a million euros worth.Often around 2% of wealth after you get to 2 or 3 million, in practice making self-funded early retirement almost unheard of. Those wealth taxes raise more money from professionals that save instead of spend than from anyone rich enough to seem like an oligarch.
This is what everyone forgets when they label anyone against a wealth tax as “temporarily embarrassed billionaires.” Even if the government could convert 100% of a billionaire’s wealth into cash (they can’t) and confiscated it all, great, what are you going to do for revenue next year?
Taxes always START by targeting the wealthy but have this funny habit of applying to more and more people as time goes on. The US income tax was a whopping 1% percent until you made the equivalent of $400K. How’d that work out?
And yet they just voted to do the opposite. It’s not universal income that’s the solution, it’s breaking apart the monopolistic legislation that allows certain companies strangleholds on the markets. M&A shouldn’t be allowed if 65% of the majority of the market is owned by those two companies. Individuals with wealth should be capped and any excess should be used for low-income development programs.
We built a world for higher level thinking but ever since 2010, we’ve been failing to meet that standard.
one idea I've been toying with is to give municipalities ability to be hostile to corporations. for instance, levy a hefty tax on the wealth that is extracted from the community and paid to shareholders.
Of course I'm sure there are a million laws against this at the state or federal level, but citizens could still band together to make them comply or else run them out of town. ie. the police could agree to stop responding to McDonalds, or courts could allow trial by jury for eviction cases, and simply have the jurors find them not guilty (for the case of corporate landlords). These would be elements of last resort. The first resort would be to require corporate owners to pay a lot more to do business. A second line would be to rescind a lot of the "tax cuts" given to companies to build there. Just say sorry, this is an emergency and we cannot afford to give you the cuts anymore.
It would be dangerous, no doubt, and ripe for abuse. But it's a tool that could be used at the local level to provide relief. Ultimately, I think certain sectors should be forbidden for corporations to operate, such as restaurants and landlording. These are entry-level small business opportunities for normal people to get involved in, and they do not deserve to be pushed out by wealthy corporations.
Arts have another problem. Although I’m not even sure if it is a problem.
Lots and lots of people can create arts. In old era when people would just gather together and sing. Nobody would make a living off that. Very very few people were making a living by performing to nobility.
Modern recording industry with specialized instruments distorted this by allowing more talented people make a living. Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. On one hand more people could make a living, on the other hand much much less people were creating arts.
Nowadays it feels like we’re returning back to the natural flow. More people are creating arts since modern instruments are widely accessible. But fewer people can make a living.
Overall, I’d say more people creating arts is preferable outcome. And best art is created for the sake of it as a hobby.
> Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people.
There is almost certainly a choir near you that would love to have more singers, especially if they're male. (Membership skews female and geriatric.)
Afaik, it is opposite. You coulf live off being musician, because people liked music. Bars and such paid live music, weddings, funerals, middle class birthsdays too.
That stopped when we started to play from record.
Had any of those pre-recording entertainers been even remotely close to making a living off it? Outside of apex apex courts?
I guess busking has existed in many societies, but that's hardly making a living, and certainly not middle class.
Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. Perhaps community contribution involving a little side income, but chances are, in pre-recording days, not even that. Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band.
(it's funny how middle class is often portaied as a modern achievement, when the past is so full of examples of population that isn't the ruling elite, but economically still far above another layer of dropouts that would just move from opportunity to opportunity until an early death, at least unless they end up at some form of monastery)
Most societies have professional musicians. Ancient Greece did, and so did Victorian England (see the music halls).
They lived from it, full stop. It was middle class sort of occupation. You was not rich nor poor, you was respected but not a leader.
> Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals.
These were definitely professionals and these events were seen as important. Even if you was poor, you threw money on it. People in the past had ears just like we do. The amateur singing after 5th beer is fun for singers, but not fun for anyone else.
> Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band.
They had plenty of opportunities, we did not invented fun. All generations before us had fun. Socializing and drinking would be the easy straightforward one. Listening to a professional band as you drink and chat.
Absolutely. For example, Romani (gypsy) musicians are justly famous and many made and continue to make a living performing at weddings, parties, etc.
> You could live off being musician, because people liked music
I like how you're turning the article around a bit. So many voices you hear these days are saying thing like, "My father was a [x]. I've been an [x] all my life. Since [y] it's been harder than ever to make a living. I've always looked up to successful [x]s as more able or refined in some way, but now I have stratification on the brain and I start to think that those [x]s are taking too big a piece of the pie, and they should give me some."
If you approached a club owner in 1960 and said "Look, you don't have to hire a band. I'll set you up with one of those open reel mag tape gizmos and you can spend $300 on a tape library and spend hours nursing it." They'd look at you and reply "That's a crazy joke. I'll hire a band."
Then in 1990 the club owner doesn't even participate in the music, and expects the bartender to keep the CD/cassette deck loaded. Or they play the radio. In 1960 that would result in jibes about the club owner promoting the radio station. In 1990 it just happens and goes unnoticed.
The problem is there has never really been a mass expectation of original live music in all these drinking-places. There has only been a social demand that music be present, which can be fulfilled in so many other ways now. It's sad that it can be stated in such a simple way that is an assault to the ego.
But it probably helps if you can allude to society changing in undesirable ways despite your best efforts, class struggles, or bad government.
I’m talking pre industrial society. You’d have your neighbors singing at funeral or weddings. Unless you’re nobility of course. But that’s a tiny portion of society.
Only problem is that it requires totalitarian world government to do it. There is that thing called competition. Societies where people aren't pushed to work by fear of hunger, homelessness, and social exclusion, will very quickly lose out and fall apart. Perhaps this is why universal basic income doesn't exist. I mean, Soviet Union was very close to having it: there was no unemployment and if you were fine living on the base salary you could do nothing on your job and as long as you didn't come there drunk or disseminated anti-Soviet jokes, you'd be fine. See where it ended up.
Wouldn't that argument predict that the united states and most of Europe should collapse any second now? Countries where failure to find work leads to an actual threat of hunger are mostly very poor and corrupt developing nations.
Indeed this is the big reason of why economic growth rates in rich countries and especially those of them with low inequality, is slower. Because the primary factor that pushes people to work, is much weaker. It's not the only reason (another big reason is that poorer countries are playing a catch-up adopting technology invented by rich ones which is always easier than inventing it first), but yes, one of the big reasons.
I don't think there is any evidence that people are motivated to work because of the threat of starvation.
The most economically productive nations on the planet are well outside any risk of starvation, by a huge margin. This line of thinking is not a part of serious economic theory, it just comes from an extremely primitive high school level understanding of economics.
That is what you would think. Yet scandinavian countries which many US observers would (wrongly) call "socialist" countries fare quite well, while the US is currently falling apart in a fractal fashion where even the big issues have smaller issues attached to them.
It is maybe time for people like you to realize that the current crisis in the US is a direct result of this zero-sum worldview, where you think you can only win if someone else loses. Some turned that around and infer someone else losing will make them win, which is where a lot of the worse-than-soviet cruelty in US society comes from. Where producing win-win outcomes should be prefered, part of the US seems to be craving for lose-lose.
It is hard for the fish to perceive the nature of the water they have been swimming in their whole lives, but trust me: from an European standpoint the frequency soviet-style stories emerging from the US is rising.
People don’t call ambulances because they’re afraid of the cost, they die in the back of rideshares or sit bleeding out waiting for someone to Google the cheapest ER.
People drink poisoned water in one of the richest countries in the world, not as a one-time scandal but as a structural outcome, in Flint, in Jackson, in places the cameras moved on from.
Housing is a market, not a right, and so entire cities now feature tent villages under highways while luxury units sit empty, protected not by need but by capital.
In parts of Louisiana, California and Iowa, the air you breathe and the water you touch can kill you, but only if you’re poor enough or Black or unlucky enough to live near a chemical plant, a battery smelter, a lake no one bothers to save. In these sacrifice zones, life expectancy drops like it’s wartime. In urban centres people film others burning alive on the subway (NYC) and call it content.
There are cemeteries of Black Americans being paved over for parking garages, with courts hesitating to intervene. These aren’t edge cases—they’re the shape of the thing. This is not the freedom that was promised. This is the bureaucracy of cruelty operating not as failure, but as design. And the worst part is: many still think this is the price of success.
No because the whole first world has protections against starvation and homelessness, while social exclusion is usually for social behaviors rather than not working. However, what does drive people to be productive in those countries is the unbounded upward mobility offered by doing productive work. People strive to be richer than each other in a virtuous cycle that has the side effect of benefiting everyone. People, especially men, love and often need to be better than their peers to attract better partners, and that's a powerful driving force for many. For others, it's just feeling successful or gaining the power to by what you want. You can't do that if you're not rewarded for higher performance than your competitors (socialism).
Homelessness in the west is mostly not because people can't afford a house but because they'd rather spend their money on other things (drugs) or don't want a house at any price, or can't avoid losing their house because of their behavior.
[dead]
Except that socialism has failed already.
Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.
> Universal basic income is impossible to justify morally.
It's pretty easy to justify morally. I mean at least as easy as any other welfare.
The net payments for UBI plus (income) taxes don't have to look to different from what many countries already do today. It's just the accounting that looks a bit different.
UBI means giving money to people, which means that money has velocity because it would be promptly spent.
We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation. Wages didn’t significantly increase to match, so in my country anyway people feel that the cost if living is significantly worse post-Covid.
Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.
This is what most people miss when they criticise UBI - for most people, it will be immediately spent, taxed, and put back into the economy. As long as the velocity is there, it's not an entirely bad idea as long as inflation can be kept under control.
> as long as inflation can be kept under control.
Nice trick if you can pull it off.
So for the 1GBP you print, you recoup up to 20p in VAT, or less for foodstuffs.
And more money chasing the same goods and services means…?
Are you suggesting that UBI should be paid out of freshly printed money?
I don't think that's how people commonly understand how UBI should be financed.
I can only speak for the UK. But given the fiscal headroom for the foreseeable, I don’t see where else it would come from? If they don’t have it, they either borrow or print it?
For any meaningful scheme, you would be talking about hundreds of billions.
That's were things such as wealth tax kicks in.
The money that just sits untaxed on the vaults of the extremely wealthy should be taxed to finance this.
This is trickle down economics done right. Remove money from the wealthy and redistribute it to benefit society.
No one has money "sitting in vaults"
They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc) or they consume which pays for all the poor peoples salaries
The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem
> They keep money in bonds (lending money to people, corps, govs that need it), stocks (raise the value of companies that are valuable thus letting them borrow more etc)
That's wealth that should be taxed.
> The immaturity of people when it comes to economics is a problem
I agree. Just not in the way you imagine.
> That's wealth that should be taxed.
Wealth taxes are fairly controversial, and not very common around the world.
But they have been implemented in a few places, and we can look at what real world effects have been observed.
You're broadly correct.
Don't let the uneducated messenger distract from UBI itself though. Proposed seriously, it's about reducing asset values and high incomes to redistribute that value to everyone who isn't losing more value than the UBI. The real argument is that it would mean short-term economic costs to build a more robust system with a bigger pool of people with the safety net and risk appetite to start/join companies.
The interesting question about UBI is how to finance it. It's far from a settled question what would be the best or even just a good way to do so.
You seem to have something very specific in mind?
> The money that just sits untaxed on the vaults of the extremely wealthy should be taxed to finance this.
Approximately no one has vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. The richest people largely hold their wealth in company shares.
So you are suggesting to raise the cost of capital for companies?
> Approximately no one has vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck
Yeah, I also like to be pedantically literal when I don't have good counter arguments. I feel your pain, brother.
You can replace my "vaults of gold" analogy for propety, yachts, real estate, company shares, etc. Whatever someone holds in their own name that constitutes wealth above a certain threshold should be taxed.
> So you are suggesting to raise the cost of capital for companies?
Corporations also should contribute to society, as they also benefit from the common infrastructure.
There's this pervasive idea that "if we tax the rich they will stop investing in companies and us filthy peasants will be out of jobs" which is the bullshit of the ages. If there is demand for goods and services, there will be those that supply them.
But the company whose shares we are talking about is out there in the real world and doing stuff with its capital. It's not idle.
I am talking about the individual holding the shares.
Are you just being obtuse to deflect from the actual argument?
Tax incidence is a non-trivial topic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
Basically, the people a tax is nominally levied upon don't necessarily bear the economic burden, and vice versa.
A silly example: do you think it makes a difference if your employer transfers your whole gross income into your account and you pay income taxes, or whether your employer pays the income tax first, and then transfers you the net amount?
I would imagine the extremely wealthy have passports, global homes, and the vaults you mention might well be in Switzerland.
The extremely wealthy will also have an army of lawyers and accountants to mitigate against this, not to mention trusts and holding companies.
It’s a nice idea, but the implementation is tricky.
I’m not arguing for them, just being realistic.
What they actually have is an inordinate power to lobby governments.
No army of lawyers would save them from actually effective regulation.
Voting with your feet will save you from that.
Of course, if you want to do business in country X, you are subject to the laws of that country X.
But otherwise, you can leave that country and settle down elsewhere and do your business there. No matter how 'actually effective' that regulation is. (Unless you do an 'East Germany' and don't allow people to leave.)
> Voting with your feet will save you from that.
When relevant countries act in tandem, it would work.
I would really like to see a billionaire vote with their feet to protect their wealth by moving ro Somalia or something like that.
A country can also limit their ability to operate from abroad when they move.
In real life, value producing is inherently tied to the society which allows value to be produced.
As you've figured out, you can't sustainably raise a lot of money via printing. At least not in real terms when adjusted for inflation. (Of course, in nominal terms you can raise arbitrary amounts by printing.)
Now how to finance a UBI is a good question.
A land value tax would be an interesting choice. Especially since a UBI will probably lead to higher rents.
If you have an inflation targeting central bank, velocity of money doesn't really matter.
If velocity speeds up and inflation goes up, the central bank will remove money from circulation to hit their target. If velocity goes down, the central bank will inject money into circulation.
The fiscal multiplier is zero.
(Or rather, any deviation of the fiscal multiplier from zero is evidence of an incompetent central bank.)
> We did this during Covid as furlough payments, and the result was high inflation.
No. The high inflation was a result of Fed policy, not fiscal tricks like furlough payments.
> Anywhere that implemented UBI would also have to implement rent controls, otherwise Landlords would just see it as money on the table. But you couldn’t have controls for all prices, so inflation would still result.
You are right that UBI can lead to higher relative prices for rent.
And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.
(UBI would not lead to inflation, and would not necessarily lead to higher absolute rents. The overall level of inflation is something an inflation targeting central bank, like the Fed or ECB, controls.)
The primary factor behind high inflation was supply chain disruption.
> And that's why you would want to pair UBI with land value taxes, not rent control.
In the last place I rented (London), the private landlords were unlikely to own the land. Fixed term leasehold was overwhelming common, not freehold.
That doesn't make a difference to how land value tax works. If a landlord doesn't own the land, he leases it from someone who does.
But to make LVT simpler to understand (and economically equivalent): you can imagine the government owns all the land, and rents out plots for eg 20 years at a time to the highest bidder. To help people plan better, the auctions can be done 5 years ahead of time. So leases for 2036 - 2056 will be auctioned off in 2031.
You can stagger the auctions, so a few leases get auctioned off every week.
If we step away from the realms of imagination, then in the UK typical leaseholds are legally valid for about 100 years, with some going up to 999 years. Of course, many leaseholders - the rent seeking Landlords - may come and go within those lease cycles.
Or are you proposing State confiscation and management of the land? I can’t quite tell from your post.
I was describing a simpler system for implementing UBI. You are right that I left out how to transition to that system.
For example, you could do more or less the same thing that the UK did to abolish slavery: buy out all the existing land owners / lease holders.
I suggested 20 years as a reasonable time frame for leases. In principle, 100 years might would also work. 999 years is probably far too long.
Now, instead of auctioning off the leases, you can also have individuals officially owning the land, but instead you tax them a certain fraction of the market value of the land every year. Economically that's equivalent.
A 999 year lease is basically economically the same as owning the land. So you should more or less treat it the same.
By morally, he might mean it creates a moral hazard. I know that when I was poor, I worked only the minimum to support myself. If I had UBI that covered those costs, I certainly wouldn't have worked, so there'd be less productivity in the economy.
Well, exactly that problem already exists qualitatively with current tax and welfare systems.
Whether UBI would make the problem quantitatively worse depends on the exact design of the UBI system you have in mind and the current system you want to compare it with.
People that have inherited capital have income without merit. Is that immoral? Randomly being born in a rich nation to an advantaged life. Is that immoral too?
Socialism didn't fail because of a UBI, which it never attempted; it failed because it couldn't calculate prices accurately, because it was bad at finding and processing information, political economy, and deeper computational complexity reasons.
UBIs don't have these problems (or, rather, they'd have some of them in different ways, but in ways that are closer to market capitalism than socialism).
That was the trait of planned economy, not socialized ownership of the means of production.
You could theoretically have market socialism, where the only difference from market capitalism would be the lack of distinction between workers and owners. Gig economy would be its kryptonite, though: if allow it you are back to exploiting workers, if you ban it you will also ban a whole lot of actual self-employed professionals.
We don't need theoretical market socialism; we had actual existing Yugoslavia.
Although it functioned better than centrally planned socialism, it still had lots of issues related to prices, particularly of capital. Who provides capital for enterprise? In practice, the state. And this ran into the same political economy issues with centrally planned economies. What happens when a company is about to go under? Unemployment is bad, so the worker-owned company gets a bail out. Who can start a firm? Well, better make sure your company satisfies the objectives of your local government.
I made the socialism-remark because of the post before blaming everything on economic inequality. While that can lead to problems, I don't think it's necessarily a problem in itself or a sign of injustice.
You're correct in that UBI is something different than socialism.
Ironically, I suspect a UBI not only can coexist with inequality but might substantially increase it (not a bad thing in my book). The vast majority of Americans already have incomes above a UBI level, especially when current government benefits are accounted for. But post UBI, a substantial minority would exit entirely from market labor, while another substantial minority would be more willing to take career and entrepreneurial risks that are on average income increasing. There are also some very favorable aspects of it for marginal tax rates, which would encourage workers to earn more income.
The top 1% of people controlling more wealth and resources than the bottom 50% is mortally justifiable?
It’s funny whenever there is a comment like “hey, maybe we shouldn’t let individual people get so rich they can basically become thier own country.” Always get called socialists/communists. You can be capitalist while also having some care and protection for the little people.
'A' being morally unjustifiable (by some metric), doesn't mean that 'B' is morally justifiable.
If there was a button that I could press that would double the wealth of the 99% of people and quadruple the wealth of the top 1%, I would keep pressing it, even though it technically makes inequality worse and worse every time.
It would be morally reprehensible not to press that button.
EDIT: just be clear, I am talking about real (i.e. inflation adjusted) wealth. I am not talking about how many zeros we add to all dollar amounts.
So I am talking about the number of houses and shoes and cars we have, and the amount of ice cream and education we can enjoy.
If you could press another button which would shift some of the obscene wealth from the ultra-rich to people living at the margins of society, you should also be mashing that button over and over.
It would be morally reprehensible to push that button, because the button would also cause prices of everything to inflate by the average increase (more than 2x). So you’d be making the 1% richer, relative to inflation, and the 99% poorer.
Ironically, our society is basically continuously pushing that button today, much to the glee of the 1%.
You are mixing up nominal and real prosperity.
To be clear: I was talking about real prosperity.
You are talking about nominal prosperity. And I agree: just adding a zero at the end of all dollar amounts wouldn't make anyone better off.
Would you care to provide some facts to support your affirmations?
UBI is not a socialist policy. It's supported by many across the political spectrum. It seems particularly popular with many libertarians
Socialism is community ownership of resources. UBI is not socialism. It is income redistribution.
Your morals are very strange if they don't include care for others.
UBI is not about "care". That's just the typical left-wing compassion framing.
I don't want to abolish all taxes, I'm not a libertarian. But giving away the money you took from somebody else needs a justification (for example to pay for the roads). And I find "income redistribution" for the sake of it not an acceptable goal.
Why is paying for roads justifiable, but providing people a safety net not justifiable?
Because people don't treat it as a "safety net" and instead use it as a "living net".
There is some contingent of people who will just not participate in society no matter what. So the question becomes where do we set the bar - the lower this bar, the smaller that contingent.
Food stamps tried it too, they're plenty successful.
Food stamps are means tested. UBI as commonly understood ain't.
Not "as commonly understood" - UBI isn't means tested by definition. That's what the "U" stands for!
UBI is obviously a far less intensive project than Socialism would be.
If you want to provide truly livable UBI, it’d be even bigger than socialism. The working people would have to be taxed through the nose. And necessary professions like trash car drivers should be paid a crapton.
What do you define to be 'truly livable'?
Let's have a look at Scandinavia or Germany. They have reasonably generous welfare systems, but they are means tested. So for the sake of argument, declare them to be 'truly livable'. Especially by global standards.
Now I claim, that you can get pretty much the same net payments (of means tested welfare - taxes) that these countries have today with a system of (UBI - taxes). Basically, at the moment both taxes and welfare are means tested; you could move to UBI by moving all the means testing from welfare to taxes.
Because net payments would be pretty much the same, all incentives would stay pretty much the same as today.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax which is one way to implement something like a UBI.
Of course, if you want to go much beyond what Germany and Scandinavia are already paying, you'd need even higher taxes or a stranger economy.
Btw, per capita the US is one of the world leaders of social welfare spending. They spend more than France. (Mostly because while France spends a higher proportion of GDP, American GDP per capita is much higher.)
> Because net payments would be pretty much the same, all incentives would stay pretty much the same as today.
Nope, in Germany you are required to work. If you can't find a job, you still have to try (and prove that), you need to stay at home / be available (and notify the state about your vacation or you might be punished by receiving less welfare) and of course you have to use up all money or wealth you have and state, in written, that you have no other sources of wealth.
So UBI would absolutely change incentives here.
Good point!
Though in practice it's fairly easy to put in a token effort so your welfare won't be cut, but avoid actually getting hired.
But you are very right that the token effort is still effort.
> [...] and of course you have to use up all money or wealth you have and state, in written, that you have no other sources of wealth.
That is similar to taxing that money and wealth. But you are right.
The sell-possessions-before-welfare is very very different from taxing.
With taxes, even crazy high, you can still accumulate wealth. Taxes slow you down, but it’s still possible.
With net-worth-ceiling to receive welfare, you’re forced you cannot accumulate wealth on welfare. And your previous wealth is gone before you get to earn welfare.
Got a nice house and BMW and decided to slow it down and live on welfare? Or, more likely, work under table and collect welfare too? Good luck with that :)
> With taxes, even crazy high, you can still accumulate wealth. Taxes slow you down, but it’s still possible.
That's only true for income taxes, not for wealth taxes.
Even wealth taxes don’t force you to sell. But welfare with wealth threshold does.
And Scandinavian or German systems are in pretty bad shape. Both hard to finance (see Denmark raising pension age to 70) and lots of people getting thrown out of the system for minuscule reasons (German pensioners collecting deposit bottles to make ends meet is not unheard of).
In euro style systems very few people receive welfare at a given time. Many people may receive it at some point in lifetime, but not at the same time. UBI would completely change the picture.
On top of that, salaries for basic jobs would need to get much higher to incentivize people to work. Thus UBI would have to be much higher as current welfare. Unless you expect citizens to live on UBI but keep services cheap with cheap migrant labor.
> On top of that, salaries for basic jobs would need to get much higher to incentivize people to work.
Not true. The 'B' in UBI means 'Basic'. UBI wil pay your rent, utilities, and food, but not much else. Now, there are some people that are willing to just exist on only the bare minimum, but that's a significant minority. The vast majority of people want more. There will be plenty of people willing to do minimum wage jobs to top-up their UBI so they can afford extras like holidays, nicer phones, meals out, etc...
The main difference would be that the security of UBI would give them more power to distch a job if they were being abused in some way, rather than being so desperate that even if their employer is abusing them they are forced to take it because they need the job to survive.
I feel like too much discussion on UBI is poisoned by the idea that the vast majority of people are bone idle and are willing to just sit at home doing nothing and just existing with the bare minumum required to live. It's just not true
It's not that the majority of people would prefer to be idle, but that right now we manage to make some really uncomfortable jobs pay very little. It's not that you'd not find people to, say, work concessions at the movie theater. It's that the pay for harvesting a whole lot of crops, or do roofing work, will not work out . It's the same reason few Americans do those jobs in the US already.
It would be good for those jobs to be paid more while people like CEOs make less.
A lot of jobs pay only „basic“ money. How do you make somebody do those jobs with UBI?
It would be 'basic' money in addition to your UBI money.
Then society still ends up paying 2x basic amount - both in UBI and salary. So price is much bigger. Now make it that much bigger across many jobs….
Why would the working people necessarily need to be taxed? You could pay for UBI with taxes on investment, or wealth, or luxury taxes, or other things besides labor.
Working people in general. Those who keep producing and not sit on their asses enjoying UBI. You can tax incomes, wealth, whatever. Either way it’d be taxing those who want more than UBI. And you’ll need to tax them a lot.
There’s no way taxing super-rich-only would cover fair UBI. It’ll have to be much much wider. Unless 99% of jobs would become automatized.
Depends if socialism means the US highway system, Medicare, or The Great Leap Forward
I'm european, so socialism means actually socialism (no/no/yes).
And I’m American, so socialism actually means western Europe in 2025!
> actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living
Until they are dying on the streets, they are actually make a living.
If they cannot make a decent living with their low income - UBI wouldn't help. UBI is a safety net, a minimal salary payment. You are never going to have a decent life on minimal salary.
Capitalism seems to be an optimizer for this type of “efficiency”. How far can we squeeze people for their labour before they are dying in the streets or rioting?
I played in a cover band with some well-paid engineers. We enjoyed music enough to consider going full time, but even with four-figure bookings were were barely taking home minimum wage. We looked into getting a manager to find us more high-paying gigs, but management fees and travel costs eat up the gains.
For a band, it's virtually impossible to find work outside the weekend. If a region had a few restaurants that were known for year round "live music Mondays", "live music lunches", etc, it would increase the number of hours that a musician could work during the week, and make full time performance viable for more musicians. Of course, people would also need to support these performances by patronizing the venues that host them.
But until a working musician can fill their weekday calendar with paying gigs without excessive travel/lodging costs, you'll continue to see talented musicians drop out and do something else.
Even if you play gigs 7 days a week on Broadway (Nashville), all year round, you'd make a pitiful salary - compared to the work put in.
And you'd be locked to only playing certain types of music (country, classic rock, singer songwriter), doing multiple gigs a day.
Truth be told, most musicians would be better off by picking a job, any job really, and treating music as a side hustle. And that really pains me, as I started out as a musician.
If you're going to make a living off music, it's going to be a never-ending marathon of hustles and uncertainty. Cover bands, church bands, wedding bands, session work, lessons, roadie work, instrument tech, and half (of not two thirds) of that work is based on sheer luck, depending on what people you cross paths with.
I've come to the perhaps grim conclusion that the world doesn't value music enough. It seems to me that most artists are making music because they love to do it themselves. It's essentially a form of play. Wanting a career out of it implies sacrifice in the way we currently have our world setup.
The current world we live in doesn't care enough about creativity. I find it a bleak thought, but here I am. Feel free to try to talk me out of it, because it does feel kind of depressing. Or feel free to validate it. I want to see the world for what it is, not what I like it to be.
The music industry is a multi-billion dollar market and growing, so it's not really fair to say that the world doesn't value it.
The problem is that it's a bit of a winner takes all market. It's comparable to professional sports.
Everyone loves soccer, but 99.9% of people won't get paid to play it. That doesn't mean it isn't valued - some of the highest paid people in the world are soccer players!
What people don't care about is seeking novelty.
Think of it: a lot of people listen to music as a background of some kind. That means they don't want to keep going "Ugh, this one sucks, next, next, next..."
But, there's thousands of absolutely excellent songs that are time tested. You can play top 100 from the 80s and not be annoyed most of the time.
But ever time somebody plays Prince or Duran Duran is a time they're not playing the song you just released.
People do care whether they realize it or not. They will always care. They have to if they consume any creative media at all. Our government and economic system on the other hand might not care to offer any encouragement other than “good luck, you’ll need it. I hope you’re good at marketing.” The article states there are more people making music than ever. I agree. I became overwhelmed by the sheer amount of output coming out by bedroom musicians. The list of bands playing near me weekly is huge. Whether it’s more quality on top of quantity is another discussion.
> I've come to the perhaps grim conclusion that the world doesn't value music enough.
What do you mean by not valuing music? Should we allocate more of our paycheck to music? Or should we talk more about how great music is?
> It seems to me that most artists are making music because they love to do it themselves.
I mean, art is ultimately an expression of emotions. If you don't love creating the art you create, unless you have another deep emotional reason to create it, it's going to affect the result quite significantly.
> The current world we live in doesn't care enough about creativity.
This is just human nature though I think. Most people want the fuzzy feeling of something familiar. And then you have those who go to large events for the shared experience of going, rather than what's actually performed.
Personally I love going to smaller venues (<300 people) where the cost of admission is such that I feel I can take the risk of something unknown and outside my comfort zone. But I also realize I'm weird that way.
What would a world that cares about creativity look like?
They sort of do (or as much as they ever have), but I think that the modern world gives access to national and global stars via prerecorded entertainment and the little guys can't make a living like they used to.
That's a drag in many ways because local circuits and regional music are where a lot of new styles and bands came from, and the wealth is more concentrated now into fewer people.
I've noticed post-covid there are a lot more weeknight gigs. I think it was accepted during the recovery period as everyone tried to make up for lost time, but so far it hasn't faded out. I hope it continues.
The lede of this article, about Rollie Pemberton, is about a "360" deal where the label gets a cut of all revenue related to the act (Pemberton's "Cadence Weapon"). Unusually, in Pemberton's case, it appears that most of his revenue came in from prizes and grants, not from recording sales or touring. The structure of his deal thus made Upper Class Records an outsized return. The deal seems pretty exploitative.
The problem with this as a framing device is that it doesn't describe very many working musical acts. 360 deals are probably generally gross? But Pemberton's situation is weird. In most cases, labels are in fact going to lose money from midlist acts.
The more you look at these kinds of businesses the more striking the pattern is. It's true of most media, it's true of startups, it's true for pharmaceuticals. The winners pay for the losers; in fact, the winners are usually the only thing that matter, the high-order bit of returns.
What's challenging about this is that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. The package offered to a midlist act might in fact be a loss leader; incentive to improve dealflow and optionality for the label, to get a better shot at the tiny number of acts whose returns will keep the label afloat. There may not be much more to offer to acts that aren't going to generate revenue.
David Lowery (a mathematician and the founder/lead vocalist of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker) had an article about this years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3850935
It's worth a read (though things have probably changed in a number of ways since then). It's an interesting counterpoint to the automatic cite to Albini's piece that comes up in these discussions. Not that you should have sympathy for labels, just it's useful to have a clearer idea of what the deal was. The classic label deal with a mid-sized advance that never recouped (and which the labels never came back looking for when it didn't) was basically the driver for "middle-class" rock lifestyles; it's dead now.
> In most cases, labels are in fact going to lose money from midlist acts.
This is almost certainly the case. The music business is the economics of superstars. see: Rosen, Sherwin. “The Economics of Superstars.” The American Economic Review 71, no. 5 (1981): 845–58.
Small personal difference translate into enormous differences in earnings. The income curve has only small area for middle incomes. Either you are below middle, or you quickly get into upper middle class or higher incomes. It's not a market failure but a predictable dynamics of this particular field.
Artists low pay is driven by two things:
First, an oversupply of talent willing to work below a living wage keeps incomes low.
Second, promotion and marketing are the primary drivers of an artist's financial outome, leading to uneven deals where labels handle the heavy lifting and deserve larger piece of the cake. Once an artist's career reaches a certain scale, their earnings can grow to outweigh their direct creative input.
This is a very sensible analysis of the problems. On the one hand, people tend to ignore how many bands fail, and how much money and effort is spent on the process. On the other hand, labels have a deathgrip on the industry, using payola and other practices that they can afford thanks to their financial (and accounting) abilities.
One thing that could help is transparency, but in a way the lack of transparency is a good part of what keeps the system going. Most people would not agree if they knew how little they would keep if they were successful; "what do you mean I have to pay for the losers?". They would just want to pay for what was necessary for their success, ignoring every expense that didn't work as a "stupid label decision". The thing is that nobody has a true recipe for success, you can just get reasonable estimates on your bets, but each bet will always be a biased coin flip.
I assumed the article would be about orchestral musicians (for whom there is a high, and increasing skill threshold) or session musicians (whose work is increasingly being replaced by computer synthesis). Instead, we get a very long narrative about a rapper who is still struggling to "make it" as a recording artist. In the era of sound recordings (which began well over a century ago) there is little incentive for the consumer to choose one with middling appeal over the most popular options. This makes the task of becoming a star, but on a small scale, a difficult one. Instead, a prospective "middle-class musician" must find a niche of some kind, perhaps by focusing on the local market. For example, a busker could potentially make more (than his cited $250k in recording revenue) over a period of 9 years with sufficient dedication.
~15-20 years ago, the popular wisdom was that we were entering the age of the long tail, where the open distribution opportunities of the internet combined with discovery technology would mean that it'd be easier for many artists to "make it" to a point where they had 10k fans. What happened?
We decimated recordings as a revenue stream (and literal decimation might be wildly generous, given that stream payouts frequently never add up to a single sale for many artists). We let people peddle the lie that artists can just find some other revenue source like merchandising or another job or anything else rather than paying for the thing people ostensibly value.
Minor league success was never an easy proposition but we had a chance to give it better margins. And we let Spotify and others eat those, and let too many people tell comforting lies to consumers along the way.
And without a major cultural shift, we will do the same thing for everyone eventually.
I think "what happened" was that Anderson's long tail theory was
a) just a theory not a proven thing and
b) based on flawed assumptions that were quickly disproven. See the 2008 paper "Should You Invest in the Long Tail?" finding that consumers don't like niche products and the bottom 80% sold $0, contrary to the theory's prediction.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=32337
Had nothing to do with merchandising or whatever. The Long Tail was never correct.
Who is this "we" you speak of? There is no society. There is only individuals making decisions on how to spend their money, time, and comfort.
If hundreds of millions of people decide to use Spotify and Youtube to obtain their music, and if that means most artists are shafted in the process, no secret organization enacted some conspiracy to achieve that. Instead, technology enabled a new form of consumption, and producers faced a new level of competition.
The "secret organization" is us, via the tyranny of small decisions. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
There are no good or bad things. Only things that happen or don't happen. Anyone is welcome to fight the nature of reality.
[flagged]
Nearly everyone would consider this a bad thing, but undoubtedly there are some who would not, for example those who really don't like me.
Interesting perspective
Most musicians who can make it now are only middle class, with a handful of superstars and a huge legion of poor artists.
I’ve played many gigs for $20-100, which is once a month or week and tough work relative to typing some code from home. I played for 25 mins in front of 1000 people and spent 8+ hours total all-in to make 200 bucks. Way harder money than coding.
Really, think back through history. Musicians were needed for dance, parties, all occasions. Now hit play on your phone connected to a speaker, GG musicians.
> I played for 25 mins in front of 1000 people and spent 8+ hours total all-in to make 200 bucks.
Perhaps a bit cynical, but my thinking has long been that if I see a band that's playing in a venue that takes like 100-200 people or so[1], they're doing it out of passion. And that immediately makes it more interesting for me to go.
I've had lots of great experiences that way, including for bands that's normally way outside my comfort zone. And as the price of admission is fairly low, if it somehow is a miss it's not a big deal.
Now, as I know they're making little or no money on the gig itself, I usually end up buying some merch.
[1]: I'm in Norway, we don't have a ton of large venues.
> Really, think back through history. Musicians were needed for dance, parties, all occasions. Now hit play on your phone connected to a speaker, GG musicians.
John Philip Sousa had the right opinion on recorded music.
On the other hand busking in a street (which I regard as open source music, donations accepted) makes way more money than releasing an open source project and having tens of thousands use it daily.
Now hit play on your phone connected to a speaker, GG musicians.
Not really comparable experience though.
Comparable, though very much not equal. Unless you came specifically to listen to music (e.g. many concerts), the music plays a technical role: dance music, movie soundtrack, restaurant / bar background music. For that, a good recording is adequate or even superior.
To some extent it is much better.
More reliable, no divas, no drunk musicians, always on time, the repertoire is literally unlimited.
This reminds me of the guy that told me he didn’t need to travel anywhere because the internet exists and people already write about it and leave pictures. This was in the 90s. Not the same obviously. And I agree that crowds can be super annoying sometimes. And it obviously depends on the context of the type of music created, etc. But in your nicely controlled environment you can miss out on spontaneity or energy that can’t be replaced.
Compare dating to buying onlyfans…
"Strip club visit to onlyfans" is more apt
What has been developing for awhile is that musicians are coming from richer backgrounds on average. They can dally around trying their hand as a working musician and can fail and not be destitute. The age of a working class or lower class musician is waining.
Same sh it is happening with basketball. More nepo babies than ballers from the streets rising up the ranks homie. And person embodies dis shit more than Bronny James.
In the UK, the 'golden age' of the dole gave an otherwise-unsupported fringe of lower-class and middle-class talent time to mature.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/01/writers-recall...
Science used to work this way too, didn't it? You'd be rich, or you'd have a wealthy benefactor.
To go back in time before university endowments for intellectual work you'd find yourself in a monestary, with endowments from the nobility for intellectual work (copying texts and making those great illuminated manuscripts). As far as I know the model you're describing did apply to ancient Greece.
Pretty much anything in the "creatives" industry.
Want to work for the most prestigious fashion brands? You start with unpaid (or very low pay) internships in some of the most expensive cities in the world. Same goes for record labels. Art. Literature publishing.
And these days, some of the above will filter out applicants that don't have big enough social media accounts.
Successful musicians have way more in common with actors than any other profession. It’s about connections, wealth, and nepotism over anything else.
Let’s say your child wants to be an actor. One way to make this happen is to be a successful actor yourself - require your children to be cast in the film in return for you starring. This is how famous acting families pushed their kids forwards, including Nicholas Cage (Coppola) and Jeff Bridges.
More relevant for HN is rich people. So you are tech rich and your kid wants to act. Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it. That is the way since movies began.
I suspect it is more likely that rich people will fund their actor-aspirant children more convention ways:
When they are younger they could pay for acting classes, acting camps and help them get into local productions.
Out of school they pay for livings costs, education and any additional classes. Living in New York or LA and being able to concentrate on getting parts of training rather than having to make money would be a huge boast.
Maybe at the next stage getting their kid an agent or manager who has contacts and experience to get their kid the roles.
Perhaps you mean throwing a few thousand dollars at student-level films to ensure their kid gets an important part. I guess maybe some will write 6 (7?) figure cheques to get their kid a part, but that probably doesn't happen often.
> Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it.
The customer of such a movie isn’t the audience but the wealthy patron sponsoring the movie. I suspect this self-promotion motivation is a large reason why so many movies are so bad.
So many movies are bad because their customer is, intellectually, the minimum common denominator. It's a miracle that movie plots don't consist entirely of grunts, chest pumping and farts, but we are getting closer and closer every year. Most block-busters have an awful lot of primal violence in them, but I bet you can't remember when was the last time any of them had any accurate, actual science.
As a film maker who studied film, the reason why so many movies are so bad are manyfold:
I can't stress enough how hard making a movie is, even in comparison to complicated tech problems, programming etc.But it’s also never been easier, cheaper, simpler. So it’s not obvious that these dynamics relate to how the middle has been hollowed out
Yes and the fact that you grew up with e.g. actor parents means you know a lot about acting and the world it takes place in and the language used within it already, just like the kid of a farmer will know more than the average person about farm animals, tractors and crop.
On top of that come the contacts and being rich. But the contacts are not a thing other people couldn't make as well, especially if they are good. One of the somewhat hidden benefits of higher education are the contacts you will make. Maybe you're not rich and your parents are roofers while you want to become an actor, but if you're good and well connected you might benefit from other peoples connections. This is how I started to make my living in a foreign country with two parents without any shared background: There were people who had those contacts and I benefitted of them simply by being the one they chose because I am accurate, reliable, on time, knowledgeable, patient and good at what I do.
But
That has been the case for a very, very long time. Classical music is basically one big orgy of wealthy people. Musicians born into families of musicians that were well off. Same goes for other artistic pursuits such as painters etc.
I found very little actual insight in this article. I think musicians have been struggling for decades and the parents have known for at least as long to tell their kids to get a degree regardless of their talents. Schools like Berklee are… questionable at best. Lots off nepo babies just taking a few years to fuck about, basically.
Conservatory music culture is peculiar. Yes, lots of upper class parents want their children to take part in it, but it is not a good career economically speaking. (Unless you want to be a double-showoff and study medicine alongside classical piano, like one guy in my hometown did.) Especially classical musicians take a step down economical class-wise if they succeed. And this has been the case for most entertainer professions for a long time.
I've played with Berklee-trained musicians. It's a mixed bag. They won't turn you into a great musician against your will. This is true of any education. And you have to already be **** good when you apply in order to make full use of the opportunities that they offer.
Oddly enough Berklee is considered to be a jazz school, but the players from there who I consider to be real stand-outs (performing at an international level, or well on their way to doing so) have chosen to earn their livings outside of mainstream jazz.
Mainstream jazz really doesn't make money. Also, Berklee is also really strong in the broader field of "Commercial Music" which includes things like film scoring and pop-oriented genres.
What is mainstream jazz
What you get in a jazz club.
The "live from Emmet's place" series that you can find on youtube has some of the best jazz players today playing mainstream jazz.
Kenny G, of course. I saw him rummaging through the dumpster in Kirkland just a few days ago.
The odds are long but some musicians make it work. Several of the Imagine Dragons band members attended Berklee, and then grinded for years playing cover songs and touring small clubs until they got a recording deal. Would they have succeeded at the same level without that Berklee education? Hard to say.
> grinded for years playing cover songs
The Beatles and Van Halen did the same.
Dream Theater is another example of a successful band that was formed at Berklee.
dude grand piano maybe cost a house back then
when you think about it
Part of the problem is that the barrier to entry is really low now. In the old days, you had to be relatively talented on your instrument, hone your skills for years playing clubs to gather an audience, and then a record label would finally give you a contract. Now you can download Logic and it will generate most of the music. You just sing along, autotune your vocals and you've got a tune that can be uploaded to Spotify, Apple Music, etc. I just saw MonoNeon in concert. His albums are mediocre but I'm guessing he's making an ok living because he's extremely talented on bass. The place was sold out.
How many financially self-sustaining musicians should there be? Streaming has caused the number to fall, but recorded music before that likely made it fall as well.
Should we stop thinking about music as a job and start thinking about it as a hobbyist art form? Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting. It’s a fun form of self expression that people will do regardless of the economics, so maybe the problem was ever thinking you could make a profession out of it?
Anyone who has something they've done out of love but can't figure out how to monetize knows the problem with this: you are limited in the amount of time you can put into doing it, both into the actual doing and the pre-doing practice and study. That means less of your best work gets done. Maybe you never actually reach the point where any of your best work gets done.
There's lots of value in amateur engineering. What if we deprofessionalized engineering via making it difficult for anyone to make a living doing it? Some people would no doubt still continue to do it, to scratch their itches and exercise their minds. But they would spend less time doing it, less time sudying how to do it, more time doing whatever it takes to pay the bills and claw out some semblance of security. We certainly wouldn't fall into technical poverty immediately, and maybe we wouldn't miss what we don't quite invent / develop, but both the people who actually love it enough to pay attention and the professionals would know the difference between what isn't getting done.
(And in fact, the US is standing on the precipice of a FAFO event with research here, having just made it more difficult to make a living focusing on it.)
What happens to a field that can only be engaged as a dilettante, never as a committed investor?
This has happened to many past professions, and will continue to happen. Can one really make a career out of woodworking craftsmanship? Making custom furniture? Maybe a small number of people in the world can, but the rest just do woodworking as a hobby because it doesn’t pay the bills.
Software development will go this way, too, as we are all starting to learn.
The problem is people are ok with corporate, mass-produced slop—whether it be music, furniture, or (soon) software. Fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for human craftsman-produced product.
the difference is this: music is always changing, and this change is what defines the active cutting edge of the arts, vs the retro/copycat/tribute/covers schlock the masses are ok with. the schlock itself requires constant creativity vampirism and sublimation or I would say sublation of soul spirit and new ideas merely to keep afloat.
those responsible for advancement of musical boundaries rarely are recognized or rewarded in kind, at least since the dawn of the recorded music mafia.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
I think now that AI is here, tech CEOs will do their best to make it happen. That is, if AI won't be a force multiplier in the end but simply replacing tech people.
The vitality of music (and probably the rest of the arts), has always depended on a symbiosis between professional and amateur musicians. Some things still need professionals, such as fielding a top level symphony orchestra. And high caliber teaching.
Among other things, I play large-ensemble jazz. Over the years, I've played in a number of bands, and the level of quality and variety achieved by players with professional training is a noticeable step above amateur players. The material that my current band plays is unplayable without training. About half of the band members have music degrees (many teach music in the public schools) and the other half are dedicated amateurs with past training like myself.
Other styles, like folk music, are essentially sustained by amateurs.
Some things can only be done by amateurs, or professionals who also have a musical hobby, such as playing experimental, obscure, or historical music. Amateur musicians also support the professional scene by attending performances, taking lessons, buying instruments (resulting in economies of scale), etc.
I intuitively agree with this perspective, even if I'm unsure about the consequences, and would probably need to think more deeply about them.
Once, when criticising the toxic effects of advertising, I got a response to the effect of 'but how will streamers be able to support themselves?!'. Which I was really struck by, because it presumes that streamers should be able to support themselves by streaming. Should they? Is this actually a desirable outcome? Yes, the financial viability probably leads to more streaming, but what about the quality of the overall streaming? And what about the opportunity cost when someone gives up their job and puts their labours into the business of streaming?
There will always be some level of cultural output, since there will always be passionate people. But has making the arts an industry (through an ever expanding artifice of 'intellectual property', and the ever expanding criminalisation of its subversion) actually led to better arts? Would this be a better or worse world if people built bridges in their day job and played rock gigs at night, solely for the love of it?
I'm not trying to do a Socratic dialogue here, I genuinely don't know. But I suspect the answer is much more nuanced than 'more money = better art', and I am sceptical of certain legal or economic distortions based on that assumption (e.g. life + 70 copyright terms, surveillance advertising, surveillance DRM software, billion-dollar industries that subsist solely on 'IP', fines and prison terms for unauthorised sharing, or the reversing or bypassing of DRM, etc).
The question we should be asking, as consumers of music, is how many musical options do we want?
If musicians can't make a living, then both the quantity and quality of our musical options go down. Yes, hobbyists will always make music for themselves, but hobbyists won't necessarily record music for us or tour around the country for us to see in live venues. The issue is not that musicians inherently deserve to make a living; the issue is, what kind of musical market is available for consumers?
Plenty of hobbyists record their music. A lot of the music I listen to is from youtubers with a handful of views.
> Plenty of hobbyists record their music.
That's not contrary to what I said, which was "hobbyists won't necessarily [emphasis added] record music for us". And of course you didn't respond to my point about touring.
In any case, the music and recordings of hobbyists are likely to be inferior to the music and recordings of professionals, because in general, professionals are better than hobbyists at almost everything, music being only one example.
> A lot of the music I listen to is from youtubers with a handful of views.
If that's the future you want, then I guess you're in luck.
Can you recommend a YouTuber with a hand full of views that you think is a good musician?
I'm not sure if they're more popular on other media platforms, but I've really enjoyed quite a few songs by the Japanese band Ribettowns and their YouTube account has less than 1K subscribers
That was sick. I watched one will less than 1000 views and it was amazing. How'd you find them?
https://www.youtube.com/@TheHotClams/videos https://www.youtube.com/@Rikmacmusic https://www.youtube.com/@MikeHarrisonMusic
I find this very interesting. None of those artists were bad by any means. But the sound quality is really bad, and none of then are even close to something like Goat Rodeo [1] which has over a million views precisely because of the exceptional performances and the high quality video and audio. Why not just listen to that? I'm genuinely curious. I'm sure there could be a good reason. Maybe you know then personally or saw them at a memorable moment.I'd love to know what it is that draws you to those artists.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7EcT5YzKhQ&pp=ygUeUXVhcnRlciB...
Sure, here's a sampling with a favorite from each. I'm a synth fan, some of these guys are good keyboard players and others are just really good with synths, as far as I know. Some of the handfuls are bigger than others.
Gabe Churray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGufuxRFqAM
Pete Calandra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxNw2MEg0Q
LtN Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qke-hC7RnXQ
Johannes Winkler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1tySFkXUUA
Caught In Joy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhxM9MNau3U
Jay Hosking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCLqevwWE1g
Gattobus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGeAMOwW01k
Dexba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3PB05qVI38
Tefty & Meems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVIzsoc6_0
Vox Mnemonic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnQi3dnWrKE
Oxix52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDNZPzSaYKo
JP Blasco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKiB04JlQqY
Kris Lennox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC3GNZYcXUU
Singing Circuitry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwdxTuFosdo
Winterdagen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhNfUDs6TGY
Noah Lifschey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVFg-ZxNns0
There are tons of rappers and EDM DJs on Soundcloud (not YouTube) that have legitimately good music. They might not be good 5 years from now or even 1 year from now, but they are good now if you put the work into finding them. Seems like atleast in the DJ scene someone might be on top of the world fairly quickly even if they disappear soon after.
I find the best EDM and rappers in skate videos. They are booked and paid by the venue
For SoundCloud rappers I really like Smoke Chedda Tha A$$ Getta.
Streaming is only the next step of the ladder, the reality is that ever since recording was possible (then broadcasting, then the internet), music (and most of the arts for that matter) has increasing winner-take all effects, where a minuscule amount of artists reap huge gains, while the rest just scrape by.
Now, with AI, all signs seem to indicate that the industry will finally reset to what was the norm for hundreds of years : Artists would be supported on their craft by patrons and benefactors. Most didn't make it to be wealthy, but at least, they got to enjoy time in their craft.
Everyone should become an engineer. Then we can spend our whole lives working to build stuff. That way, we can prevent anyone from pursuing anything creative, beautiful, or transcendental.
Like, I see where you're going with this but music is one of those things that's actually the whole point of being alive. If all we ever do is do "useful" things ($$$) we lose our chance to actually live our lives.
i think you're reading something into my post that i didnt intend. i hate the "just learn to code"/"only STEM degrees are worthwhile" crowd.
we absolutely should be pursing things that are creative, beautiful, and transcendental. but.. should we expect the pursuit of the creative, beautiful, and transcendental to be a career? we should encourage everybody to do because it is inherently valuable instead of pursuing it because its a job.
We should not encourage everybody to pursue the arts. But a society that disregards the importance of the arts (one symptom of which is that the pursuit of the arts as a career/way of life is inviable) then the society as a whole will -- 100% absolutely guaranteed -- suffer as a result. The arts are the means by which the unconscious comes to consciousness. Music is a means by which the sublime, and of course even various mundane psycho-spiritual-emotional states -- become accessible for the vast majority of people who can not access said states without aid.
In the absence of that, neurosis is certain to flourish.
So, it is not an economic matter but a matter of the psychodynamics of society. For the sake of the health of the whole, some members of the whole must be able to bring in certain vibes, patterns, states of mind, ideas, etc. And without the ability to pursue that and only that skillset, they won't be able to succeed at that. And it is required for the functioning of the whole.
It's a bit akin to the way the entire body depends on the cells that process ATP. If you eliminate all cells that serve that role, the entire body dies, even though they are a miniscule aspect of the entire operation. That is where the animating spirit comes from.
Well sure, but he asked "should we expect the pursuit of the creative, beautiful, and transcendental to be a career?"
My answer is no not necessarily. One can pursue it in their free time. Whether it should be a career or not is honestly an invisible hand question (aka capitalism). I'm normally not pro invisible hand such as in the case of healthcare, but when it comes to stuff like this, I totally am.
It might be beneficial to have dedicated people to do this, but a lot can be accomplished by free time.
The US constitution says congress will pay for useful arts and sciences. It says this before paying for national defense fwiw. If career soldiers and scientists can exist with federal dollars, so should useful artists. Now to define useful art...
"Useful art" is an old term that means what people call "engineering" nowadays.
The "useful arts" mentioned in the US constitution refers to the works of artisans and craftsmen, such as textile manufacturers, instrument* makers, and people working in construction.
*Realizing this might be confusing in context. I meant e.g. navigational instruments
"whole point of being alive" is maybe exaggerating for something that most people are demonstrably uninterested in paying more than a very small fraction of their income to consume?
A lot.
Many musicians teach others. Without them how will we learn one of the most beautiful / coolest things to ever exist?
I’ve tried learning from an app and it’s not the same as spending an hour with my guitar teacher. It’s not even close. I wish he were paid more given how talented he is and how hard he works.
> I wish he were paid more given how talented he is and how hard he works.
He's your guitar teacher. It would be difficult for you to state a wish that was more completely under your own control.
I’m talking about the gigs where he gets paid in beer and the streaming where he makes pennies. But sure boss I’ll throw him some extra cash when he’s back from tour.
it's obviously unsustainable for a single person, I have dozens of people in my life that I wish were paid more
How many financially self-sustaining software developers should there be? AI code generation has caused the number to fall, but FOSS before that likely made it fall as well.
I can keep playing this game, as can others. Why do we need all that money invested in data collection and disseminating cat videos, political unrest, etc.
AI code generation has caused the number to fall
Not at all clear.
FOSS before that likely made it fall as well
Almost certainly false. Imagine a world where the concept of open source never happened, so if you want a website you have to pay thousands of dollars for web servers, compilers, databases, etc. Would the demand for software developers be higher or lower than in our world?
Well in this case someone seems to employ and pay these software developers.
We can only speculate about the future having more AI-code or the repercussions thereof (as many do).
Answer is enough to sustainably run needs of modern society. And that number is probably significantly lower than we now have.
And for me with musicians the number is zero.
I would rather musicians get paid in genres that I can’t stand than see the legion of programmers employed in “social media” and “on line marketing” and other things that keep people isolated and usually angry. Hell of a lot better things re personal and social interaction than having my phone glued to my wallet or my amygdala.
Neither musicians or social media is needed for modern life. Or even online marketing...
You probably want digital payment systems like banking and warehouse management. But I am thinking those sort of areas are only fraction of modern software industry.
? you are suggesting that zero musicians are required by society in order for society to function?
> Should we stop thinking about music as a job and start thinking about it as a hobbyist art form?
At one point there were several million "MySpace Bands". That's music as a hobbyist art form. Some of them might even have been good.
At least for metal, there are still tons of tiny musicians. Underground labels do cassette runs for the smallest of them, medium-tiny ones might get vinyls.
Bandcamp is chock full of bands, from home produced stuff, to bands spending saved money on a cheap studio. It's enough that even in the sub-niches I like, I can listen to 10-20 newly released albums every week.
I doubt more than a small single digit percentage of them make money that way, but they very often really enjoy what they are doing.
imo, it's better to have a million bands dicking around and having fun playing terrible shows for crowds of ten people than a hundred polished superstar groups playing sold out arenas.
Those are not the only two choices. There are so many great bands playing shows to hundreds or a few thousand people.
Maybe you don't value music or live music, but there are a lot of people out there that do. You not caring much for it doesn't change the fact or make it ok that they're getting stiffed by those with the upper hand in the relationship.
It’s already happened to DJing. Used to require very expensive gear, crates full of expensive records, and a ton of talent.
Now someone with a $400 controller, pirated music, and some free time can do it. Loads of people willing to play at venues for free just for the fun of it have crushed the viability of doing it as an actual job.
I suppose we can say the same thing about all jobs when AI gets good enough to take them over.
We will start thinking about jobs when the tech feudal lords find out there's no more growth, because consumers to their products are being replaced by AI.
Some are already worried: https://fortune.com/europe/2025/06/09/bnpl-loans-klarna-ceo-...
"How many jobs there should be for X" is not a question that can be answered by people whose main intent in the last few years has been to put others out of a job while claiming they're making the world a better place. Aka, us in tech.
> We will start thinking about jobs when the tech feudal lords find out there's no more growth, because consumers to their products are being replaced by AI.
The future feudal lords will just sell to each other and ignore the jobless, moneyless masses. We don’t like to hear this, but normal people will likely become less and less economically relevant, to the point where their total economic activity will one day be a rounding error next to the economic activity of the top 0.0N%.
I worked with a founder who dealt with only a small number of very rich customers. He would say “We only sell to the rich because they have the money.” The future looks like a more extreme version of this.
That doesn't work for all industries though. iPhones and other mass luxury/ "masstige" goods are essentially high-end commodities. Apple can't stay rich just selling to richies, they need poor sods to line up to buy millions upon millions of Apple devices. And that can't happen if aforementioned sods have no income. Same with most electronics, with most travel, with autos, with apparel, most restaurants, videogames, furnishings and appliances, etc. Income inequality can only go so far without dire economic consequences. If the non-wealthy become a mere rounding error in terms of aggregate purchasing power, then we simply won't be able to buy enough to keep these lifestyle manufacturers flush.
Rich people selling stuff to other rich people is just moving wealth around, it does not generate wealth.
I sell you stuff worth 5 billion, you give me 5 billion. Nothing happened. Maybe you even consume the product so there is less wealth.
Only labor can generate value. Work is what transforms a thing into another thing that has more value than before. Machines and AI do not create value.
You might wonder what would happen if they had an general AI, maybe actual autonomous robots? Would those create value? Well, at first whoever got the first AGI would get incredibly rich but if everyone had access to that tech, the prices for everything that can produced with it would plummet down until they are the cost of running the AI.
Rich people get richer by employing poor people. So they can extract the value they produce. If they don't employ anyone, they are not making any profit. (Well for actual free markets, you can of course make profit being a monopolist and stuff or just do crime.)
So yes, rich people are screwed. That is why they buy bunkers in New Zealand. That is why we see the rise of fascism, because they will have to tighten the screws to keep the ship running a little while longer.
Exactly, they are running for the haven of government to retain power.
Why keep any ships running other than their own? kill off 90% of the humans, starting with the poor, using robots, after robots can make new robots and fix themselves and do all the other jobs?
If we're looking at extremes, I don't think the ultra rich are in as bad a position as you want them to be.
a lot of ifs there, most of which aren't really in the cards: aka laborless robotic self reproduction? seriously? if we have learned one thing in the last decades it is that complex systems need to be rebooted sometimes because <state>
silicone valley is grifting its own rich people with paper bomb shelters.
>I worked with a founder who dealt with only a small number of very rich customers. He would say “We only sell to the rich because they have the money.”
So you worked with someone who you claim to be a direct -knowing even- participant in this trend. You presumably benefited from this work too. No?
It's impressive how many people bemoan the dangers they see in a thing, while continuing to contribute to its growth, again and again and again, as long as the personal benefit keeps working their way.
He's a real Adolf Eichmann, that one
This escalated quickly!
I hope you realize I was using sarcasm and was trying to defend you against the criticism.
I don't necessarily disagree with working for a founder who has that as a philosophy, because I also don't think some of the arguments here about the elite of the world appropriating ever more wealth while crushing the masses into misery are realistic at all (They smell more like mid-20th century communist fantasies of capitalist decline than anything to me)
But, if your central moral argument about the subject does revolve around thinking such a scenario is likely and being disgusted by it, then being paid by the people supposedly promoting this kind of economic inequality and working with them while they do it is pretty goddam hypocritical.
With the advent of streaming services like Spotify, it’s definitely getting worse, but the market has always been difficult from a strictly performative/sales perspective. I never made any real money from my compositions, but I pulled a decent side income teaching piano back in university.
It reminds me of ex-Soviet chess players. The emigration of so many good grandmaster-level players diluted the market, and unless you were in the absolute upper echelons (like Kramnik, Karpov, or Kasparov), you pretty much had to supplement your income by teaching on the side.
Oddly enough this also caused similar issues in classical orchestras - in the 90s a bunch of top flight Eastern European and Russian musicians raised the bar of orchestras in places like NZ, with the side effect of having fewer seats for younger musicians to move into.
What is it with so many people saying art should be a hobby? except for the really great.
But how are you going to get good if you don't get any practice and feedback?
I remember someone lamenting people videoing comedians in small venues and posting the fails, that follow you forever. How are you going to get good at stand up if you can't fail and learn?
Not everyone can be Steven King and get an advance worth 3 years salary for their first book.
Well, you know, it is kinda like how companies are replacing all the juniors with AI. It's cheap, for now. But then comes the question of what do you do in 5-10 years when you need some seniors with actual experience?
> But how are you going to get good if you don't get any practice and feedback?
When you do a hobby you can get practice and feedback in. It depends on their situation.
Someone is a kid? A lot
Someone is single? 4 hours per evening and 6 hours per weekend day. That's still a lot.
Someone has kids? Don't know but doesn't seem like a lot
> How many financially self-sustaining musicians should there be?
That depends, how much do you value culture (and, my extension: cultural power)? If it's a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, then whatever the market will bear.
> Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting.
Completely different markets, though: how much time per day do you spend looking at landscape paintings vs. listening to music?
Both are there constantly in the background of my day.
It’s not really The Sims. You don’t usually go stand in front of one of your paintings and emote a bunch. It’s just there breathing life into a space.
Landscape painters were replaced by cameras.
We do spend a lot of time looking at photos!
I’d say I intentionally listen to music maybe an hour total per month, usually while my eyes are occupied.
Meanwhile, outside of museums most landscape art is also advertising. But I’ll spend two or three hours at an art museum when I get the chance.
Everyone knows that music is the objectively superior art form. Perhaps excluding film, which, putting aside scant creative geniuses, requires music and scoring.
Anyone who could live on this planet without music is a psycopath.
People can be so go-go-go they don’t have time to think and reflect. Music is similar, it’s a source of constant distraction for the mind. It’s even more prominent in contemporary music. When listening to pieces more than a thousand years old and you’ll sometimes find works that build meaning into the silence as masterfully as artists compose paintings with negative space. But now it seems any gap must be filled with a beat. Y’all can stay wrapped up in your noise-noise-noise. But do excuse me for being comfortable in the silence of my own thoughts.
yes! i still have the songs i listened to last week echoing around in my head. i foind out i have some kind of memory based perfect pitch, as when i put thr recording on again it's in the same key i was playing it in my head in. i can literally hum every note of it, despite having heard it twice about a week ago, because it was poignant and stuck with me.
silence is golden and allows for reflection upon what we heard
I hear music all the time, when I commute, when I drive kids to various clubs, friends, and events, when they put music on at home, when I watch a TV show or a movie - all that music was produced by somebody.
I like art but I cannot remember the last time I went to an exhibition. Certainly not since my wife and I became parents.
"I like music but cannot remember the last time I went to a concert"
That seems like a weird angle to take it, no? I know it's just an example but there is more than one type of artist, just as there's more than one type of musician. As simple as it is, someone needed to design the YCombinator logo. Art is everywhere as well, even on a site like this that doesn't host much visual media.
(P.S. I do remember the last time I went to a concert. October).
Sorry, I cannot follow. But I don't find your first sentence to be weird.
I was mostly just saying that your comparisons seem uneven. You were comparing one specific part of art (landscape painting) to the entire music industry. There more ways to art.
when was the last time you saw something beautiful though? Or just saw something and it made you think.
Yesterday a butterfly got stuck in my pool, I usually try to save them. This one was trying it's hardest to fly but the water on it's wings was just slightly too heavy or something, but it was flapping really hard and making the most amazing ripple in the pool, I froze and couldn't stop looking at the ripple it was making, the ripple frequency and modulation was was slow and totally perfect, even tho it was flapping incredibly hard...but I also thought it's stuck and going to die, but I was totally fixated on the frequency and amplitudes. I managed to break my gaze and got it out. That was the most beautiful thing that made me think recently, I'm still thinking about it.
Now you’ve got me thinking about the beauty in the mundane. The real butterfly effect is the friends we make along the way. You saved the butterfly one time, and in the telling, you’ve helped save my hope in humanity. To me, these moments are as genuinely human as any achievement. To be human is to behold, and to be captivated thus.
Why is that relevant? We're talking about the commercial prospect of making music vs. that of painting landscapes.
But I think the key difference is scale and ubiquity... music isn't niche like landscape painting
5. There should be 5 people in whole of Canada to make money from their music. Or 15. Kazzillion razmadillion. How are you supposed to calculate that?
Well you don’t need to. The answer is ”as many as the market will support”, as it is with any other product. However, your rhetorical question misses the point completely. The question is not should a person just make thing x as a hobby, but that this global multi-billion dollar industry shares very little of it’s revenue to the people who make thump thump and bum bum that get’s asses on the floor and people to move. All of the examples in this article are clearly quite successful acts that people are willing to pay to listen to and are quite integral part of the economy as a whole (not to mention softer values such as cultural enrichment of all human life), but are struggling to make the ends meet. Why.
Because some else literally takes the money people pay to listen to them. If I want to listen rapper Yakkedi Yap’s new single Xingabow and give him money, I would be better off to sending them money in an envelope than listening them from any streaming app (maybe Bandcamp is an exception), or even going to their concert or buying their merch. Because someone literally steals the money.
At least if you buy a landscape painting from a gallery the gallery takes just 20-40% and artist gets the rest minus materials and taxes. They don’t take 60%, then minus every possible cost from the artist, then take what is left and give it to Drake.
>Nobody is out there lamenting that you can’t make a living off of landscape painting
Plenty are. But your experience in landscape painting transfers to other professional crafts, so the loss is mitigated. What does a skilled musician have to tranfer to if the industry falls apart? Teaching music?
I also really don't like reinforcing the idea that "the arts aren't meant to be a career". One of the biggest turnabouts in the 20th century is that you don't need to already be set for life in order to spend your days training your passions. The arts are (or were) no longer this "high class" means to distinguish yourself from the working class.
Meanwhile so much of society is built upon and weathered against destruction over such artisans. Are you really going to have a healthy society if all kids see growing up are pencil pushers, hard physical labor, managing retail, or hyper-specializing after 20+ years of schooling? What's all that work building up to? To serve billionaires?
okay, well what if i had picked a different example:
nobody is out there lamenting that we're not supporting a 'middle class' of baseball players.
the top 0.001% get to the big leagues and make bank. the top 0.01% scrape by in the minors. nobody else makes a dime. yet... plenty of people are still passionate about the game and play it for free. the guys playing in an adult rec leauge aren't thinking "there's a career in this I can put together a good highlight reel this season". they're playing because they find it fun and fulfilling.
so maybe musicians should view music like professional sports? do it because you love it. start a band with your friends. play gigs at your local bar every friday. but don't kid yourself that it's a career.
>nobody is out there lamenting that we're not supporting a 'middle class' of baseball players.
I will cheekily argue that the "transferable skill" of failed athletes is charisma. It's pretty clear that being able to talk about sports is a cheat code for upwards mobility (no matter the industry) and the mentality it builds is of high social value (you'll never find trouble finding a local court or field to make a pickup game with. An artists Meetup, a bit harder to arrange). Certainly more than 99% of artists.
But to properly answer your point, I don't have the full answer of how to balance "necessary careers" with "dream careers". If you want to maintain a satisfied populace (aka, prevent a violent coup by people who feel they have nothing to lose), they need to feel their dreams are reachable. Emphasis on "feel".
You don't even need to make money off your dreams per se. But you need time for it, and basics safeties taken care of. the current atmosphere offers neither.
I would love to make a living off of landscape painting actually
Why do you think nobody is lamenting that you can't make a living off of landscape painting? Lot's of people want to be professional artists. Some percentage of them actually are able to make a living off of it.
I think most artists would tell you that if people couldn't make a living as visual artists, the quality of new art in the world would decrease tremendously. Painting is a craft - it takes a lot of training to develop the skills. It also takes a ton of work to develop one's own style. Then there's the whole business part of marketing the work.
Very few great artists would have been able to reach their level of quality just doing it as a hobby.
In a world where some large fraction of the working-age population is employed in factories (most of those in automotive), maybe not so many should be musicians. In a world where we've shipped all those other blue collar jobs to Asia, every industry sub-sector that becomes unviable is a disaster. So asking "how many x should there be" sort of marks you as clueless or even callous. The answer is as many as there can possibly be, plus a few extra.
Time and time again, stories on totally different topics hinge on: during or just after the pandemic, there was a major change in cost of doing just about everything. Now of course, the pandemic was A. Big. Thing. and there was also an overlaid global supply-chain disruption when the Ever Given blocked the Suez Canal in '21.
But: fundamentally, why did all of this happen, and why haven't prices normalised (i.e. dropped) since?
Does anyone have a hypothesis, beyond 'corporate gouging', which I can accept, but seems too simplistic to explain what seems to be an enduring global phenomenon?
For prices specifically I think it's fair to say that inflation only goes in one direction, but for larger market trends, IMO the key here is _habit building_.
Many things were technically feasible pre-pandemic but not done habitually: remote work, streaming movies instead of going to the theater, ordering delivery instead of dining out, and so on. The pandemic forced many people to change their habits and get over any initial inertia (e.g. investing in a WFH setup or home theater). The result is that when the world returned to normal, the markets didn't: consumer habits had already moved on.
>> But: fundamentally, why did all of this happen, and why haven't prices normalised (i.e. dropped) since?
Because governments printed an enormous amount of money during the pandemic. Money is worth far less that it was pre-pandemic, so prices are higher.
I left a career in music production five years ago and moved into programming (data science). there's no turning back.
I was very aware that I was lucky. You can be the best, you can have a great network, but (in my experience), luck is the main factor. and the "luck" window in the music space is more and more narrow currently.
I'm currently a data analyst, used to be a software engineer. Weirdly enough I feel that data analysis (programming, visualizing, consulting and presenting) feels a lot related to making music. I think I just see the art of being a data analyst.
I want to "move up" in my career, but I simply don't see the (performative) art of data science and data engineering. It feels too narrow. Music and data analysis feels broad. I could take a higher paycheck but it'd cost of a lot of fun.
It probably helps that I on top of that get to integrate LLMs and create LLM flows, basically n8n but then programming it using the APIs of an LLM. So I'm still actually programming as well.
It's fun being a generalist.
I totally agree, because I work with data analysis as well. Both feel similar because in the end you have to tell a story and (presumably) please the audience :)
This feel like it's related to the problem of no more mid-budget movies. Now that physical media (CD/VHS/DVD) isn't a thing, there is no long tail of fans to sustain mid-market efforts. Movies that cost a few tens of millions usually didn't make their budget back in the theater -- it was VHS and DVD sales that made up the difference. But now that doesn't happen, so those movies either don't get made, or they're made by the streamers.
Same thing with music. Streaming pays so little compared to physical media now that artists never make up the difference.
Either you're part of the algorithmic elite or you're scraping by
> or they're made by the streamers.
Not sure what the problem is, the streams will pay the budget of the movie, just like the old movie studios did. So where is the difference? Do they pay much less and no royalties?
It's really hard to become a cult classic when it's only on Netflix. But also yes, until recently (and even now), it pays a lot less to the people involved in the movie. There weren't really any residuals, the streamers make a one time payment.
yes, there's just less money going around with streaming - think about it, rentals sustained hundreds of physical buildings with multiple employees
Surely for most time, musicians have been working class. And precarious?
I'm not arguing in favour, I'm noting the deep historical social worth of a musician. It's classic veblen goods for a few, and serfdom for the rest.
Composers had ambiguous social standing. Virtuosi were superstars, but you didn't want your daughter to marry one.
What if the underlying relative value of music was returning to its organic roots? Maybe this is a version of the burger index and their labour value has been overweight for 50 or more years?
The cost in time and effort to become a musician is comparable to an apprenticeship or a surgeon. That cost isn't reflected in their value in the market.
surgery isn't an additive market though, we don't all have access to hundreds of thousands of surgeries for $10/mo
Many skilled but repetitive jobs became automated away. From middle-class weavers (1760s) to middle-class car assembly workers (1970s) to middle-class journalists (eroding since 2000s) to middle-class software developers (happening now, alas).
All these professions did not disappear. They have transformed though more to tending and overseeing machines, at an income level below middle class, with a much smaller number of highly-skilled professionals doing the exceptional things which machines don't do too well.
When the technology is good enough for a one person to record an entire album, it's hard to be a specialist musician, like a violinist in an orchestra, or even a guitarist in a band
I suppose the skilled professions that will resist machine replacement for longest time are these which require a lot of custom work and adjusting to unique local circumstances: electricians, plumbers, car mechanics, doctors, hairdressers, maybe construction workers. But they will likely handle mostly special cases, where standard, machine-friendly solutions don't fit well, a bit like modern tailors.
Well, AI is here and I give it a high chance than in a few years all the music streaming platforms will go the way of the mastodon. Even recorded music in general may take a hit. I'm already skipping tracks in YT-music that I suspect they are AI-generated. When I find that the majority of the tracks are AI-generated, I'll start looking up individual producers and getting back to maintaining my own music collection in a harddrive and an MP3 player. Maybe I'll even buy a ticket and go to a concert, something I've only done once so far in my four decades and counting.
You may say that people just care about the music and not the musician, and that thus an AI-generated track is as good as any. Perhaps. But when I was a kid, all my pals developed their musical taste by word-of-mouth and I-want-to-be-cool-like-you-and-listen-to-Rammstein. Can't imagine all edgy teenagers will fall in love with an AI model.
Disclaimer: I work in the pro audio industry and have decades of experience with this industry from the perspective of a developer of instruments, tools, and so on, specifically for creatives.
You see, I firmly believe that music, itself, is a form of currency.
So exchanging that currency for another is the problem.
However, I can say with a great deal of certainty - having observed musicians for decades - musicians make money when they make live music.
Not all music can be played live.
But live musicians are the future of music.
It’s one thing to be able to conjure up whatever you want with AI.
But, do it live, in front of 1000 people.
Or, even 10.
I can walk through my city today and encounter 100 (easily) musicians making money every hour, plying their wares into the stones of the streets and pedestrian bubbles.
But yeah, it’s hard work. Why not make an AI do it?
What do you mean by: music, itself, is a form of currency?
I really am missing some context here.
You get up on stage in front of a bunch of people, and you deliver a performance that they find compelling enough to contribute their own acknowledgement of your work in exchange, and in this process there is a current that flows between the artist and the audience, which - when properly motivated - increases in value over time.
Ah, sort of like social capital? Not fully I think, but seems related to it.
Interesting take! I can see the value/process you're describing, never thought of it that way.
I had a look at this artists YouTube page. Clearly he is just not very popular despite winning some awards, having various CBC interviews, being endorsed by the city of Edmonton and playing for Justin Trudeau.
As has always been the case with music, success is extremely rare. For every winner, there are a million losers. So, better to think of it more like a lottery than a normal industry / job.
His success can be attributed to Canadian content law all the prizes he won, and whatever are government funded
Ah, the music industry.
I know of one songwriter with multiple number 1 hits that was with a large american label for a while ... then moved to another, and the original label kept collecting the royalties when they were no longer contractually allowed to.
Their answer: "So sue us, it'll cost more than you'll get, we can drag this on for years, and you can't get costs awarded, so if we were you we'd just eat the L".
In my region of the world an artist of any kind would fall into one of two groups:
-Poor and malnourished member of the common folk.
-Part of the elites, who is set for life anyway and creates art thanks to the ample spare time they have.
I used to be in a band and one major point of contention in our group was whether we could make a living out of this. My opinion was that no, we couldn't.
I have a friend who enjoys moderate success with his band - they're doing historical reconstruction so they're invited to events in the space and, of course, paid. He keeps his day job though. Truth be told in the historical reconstruction field only smiths and tailors can pull off this being their main thing and it's not a given.
We were discussing this on another musician forum.
It has been a double (triple, even) whammy for musicians, compared to mid 90s and back. There used to be a time where you could play in a band, not a huge signed one, and still make a living. Just off playing the door, on the regular bar / club circuit.
People went out much more back in the day. A regular weekday gig could bring you more money than a weekend gig does today. Unless you play in the most tourist-y hot spots, in the largest cities (think Nashville Broadway), you're not going to find places that play music all days. Not even 3-4 days a week. If you're lucky, it is going to be live music a couple of days, and almost only during weekends. Assuming you're paid $70 - $200 pr. gig, calculate how many gigs you need to play a year to not live in poverty.
Pay hasn't really changed much, either - for the musicians that play for a flat fee, that figure has been standing still for decades.
Almost every professional musician I know will have a battery of side hustles, these days. They will take every gig they can find, they will give lessons, they will do studio work, they will work as techs, become niche influencers, they will do whatever it takes.
But more often than not, they will have abandoned music as their main revenue stream, and rather pick up regular job that generates a steady paycheck, and gig during the weekends.
I can count on one hand the musicians / artists that have managed to make it "big", as in being C- or D-lister artists, and thus making a living off their recorded and touring music. They still spend equally much time on their social media, as that is what gets your name out. There is an immense pressure to play the algorithm, because that could make your tune blow up and become viral.
In fact, that is often how musicians become "famous" these days. Suddenly their tune becomes viral in tiktok vids, and that's how they manage to get millions of listeners...doesn't actually pay much, but it puts a big spotlight on your name.
I'm a software engineer by trade, but have played bluesy / rock guitar since I heard Jimi Hendrix as a teenager. I try to run a band, to fuel my mid-life crisis but I've come to the conclusion that it's essentially a hobby, not a device for making money.
There's something freeing about embracing it as a passion instead of chasing dollars
In a discussion about the outstandingly high cost of concert tickets, I had a breakthrough moment just on Friday (today is Sunday where I am). Artists no longer make a living selling recorded music because of streaming platforms. They now make their living performing, hence exceedingly expensive concert tickets.
I used to go to shows that cost $30-80. Now they are hundreds and the biggest artists may cost >$1k. I'm lucky that I make a good living, cause I wouldn't be able to go to most shows otherwise.
Middle class musician has been a recent phenomena that probably started in 1800s and is now going away again.
Well this is timely. I just started EDM production as a hobby 2 weeks ago! I did it a long while ago for a bit and it's time to rekindle the music flame. Well, I guess I've always been beatboxing but I'm never aware of that. My subconscious mind plays a lot of tricks on me when it comes to my musicality. My musicality is quite a subconscious thing actually. Well, not anymore!
I haven't read the article yet but I suspected as much that there is not much money in music, not even a livable wage. That's not why I'm doing it though. I have a few tracks in my mind since childhood (and a few more recent ones) that I want to get out. Also it's a fun thing to learn about marketing while I'm at it.
My point: I think that should be enough. Not everything we do has to make enough money.
It's finally time to put that perfect pitch and subconscious OCD style melody generation to use!
"The Death of the Middle-Class Musician"
* The Death of the Middle-Class
There I fixed their title
I do wonder about actual numbers, though.
* Is the amount of music listened to in a day down? * Is the rate of music creation down? * Given some metric of diversity is music diversity down? * Given some metric of quality is music quality down? * Are there fewer artists per capita / in total? * Has the Gini coefficient really shifted?
I assume that for almost all of these, the answer is actually no. Presumably, technology has made making more higher quality music easier and cheaper than ever, and people are listening to more than ever.
In Jan, my son ordered a mystery box from ... I dunno who. It just showed up. Evidently it was someone connected with King Gizzard because it was recently released KG vinyl, inc a test pressing. Also a sealed cassette of another band that we don't recognize. Also stickers.
Connect with fans, treat them well and stay creative - and they'll buy your stuff. Often a lot of it.
Yeah King Gizzard have basically done the complete opposite of what is considered good advice on making it in the music business and made it work.
Rapid release schedule (except the last year or so), inconsistent genre choices, questionable aesthetic choices, not much marketing, and just some generally goofy stuff and it just works. I think part of it is folks just tired of the packaged crap and see it for what it is. Pure authentic stuff.
Streaming is the biggest scam to have perpetuated the entertainment industry. The way the money is divided among the content creators is absurd and the prices are both too high and too low at the same time.
It's even more of a scam because none of these companies were making such services with a way to actually profit in mind. It got customers spoiled on unrealistically cheap media; cheap media that was a result of skilled labor that only got more expensive over time. The bubble was going to burst one day.
In some regards, the ZIRP era ending was needed; companies can't just make money by relying on hype for years, even decades before the piper needs to be paid. But of course it couldn't have ended in a worst time.
It’s cheap because I can carry a terabyte in my pocket not because of anything else. If somehow we went back to selling 700 MB CDs of uncompressed music I would still fill my pocket with a terabyte of every song to not pay $30 a CD.
Space is cheap, talent is not cheap. That was my point. It's not expensive to fill your terabyte with slop, is it?
> In some regards, the ZIRP era ending was needed; companies can't just make money by relying on hype for years, even decades before the piper needs to be paid. But of course it couldn't have ended in a worst time.
Maybe that is why lots of people are struggling more now while the economy numbers say things are better than ever.
For now. I believe the gdp started to slightly contract last quarter. The government never wants to admit times are bad, but eventually even their massaging of the data can't hide the true situation.
GDP contracted because of a build up of inventory. It was a technicality, the GDP actually grew.
I suppose we'll see if they run through all that inventory. Or worse, don't run through it.
It's not great. But the economics of selling recordings never worked out for artists; it's possible that most of what streaming does is to kill advances for artists, and royally fuck labels, the perennial antagonists in the stories we tell about the music industry.
Music doesn't the buyer money, at the same time millions are qualified to make it and to boot millions enjoy making it. There is little barrier to entry and there is more than enough of it. Even if another song is never made. It's in the sweet spot for being a low paid shithole.
I'd look at NFTs for similar market dynamics. Some big winners but mostly people not making a dime.
Recording worked only as merch to sell at live shows.
recording also works to give a 'real job' to those who insist on making music for a living.
Only a few have ever made a job of performing. The midevil bard was often a second son of a nobel supported as a way to ensure they kill the older brother for the throne. Everyone else music was a hobby they did after farming was done.
The 80s song Sultans of Swing is about this. Don't think it's new.
Well, I guess I was right... Ill be listening to 80s and 90s music for the rest of my life.
To be blunt, the numbers show that the main problem is the listener. Most just do not care to choose so they consume what they're told is cool. If you think you care but consistently listen to artists present in Spotify's top 100 by choice, sorry, you're part of the problem too. Most being passive consumers has always been the case, but the system perfects itself with time and less and less attention trickles down.
Notice, how I used "attention" and not "money" or even "listens". Just look at the first and the main goalpost independent artist set for themselves. It's no longer "buy our music" or "come to our show", by now they strive to convince the audience to attempt to listen to their songs.
By this time I consider an artist that's only present in streaming services and lacks a visible way of direct distribution of their music (which includes such services as Bandcamp, for now) either an utterly mismanaged one or, again, a part of the problem†.
The only way for the artist to feel appreciated is building their loyal fan base, but if you don't want to wear the "entertainer" hat (which now equals becoming a circus monkey for the trending social media) this becomes harder and harder for a bunch of reasons:
1. Music is just not as culturally important as it was 50 years ago. 2. Live shows are in decline and dominated by cover/tribute acts. 3. As correctly mentioned in TFA, you're fighting with everything else plus everything that came before you. 4. The world is closing. Visas have always been a curse‡, but nowadays even if I jump through a myriad of hoops and get one, I can't even cross the border to the countries we usually started the tours from in a previous life. 5. The internet feels like a collapsing space too, though it's probably the most controversial opinion of mine.
There's also a problem of NNGC. At least the previous boom (blockchain) promised to make things better in some way (and it did, but underdelivered tenfold), but the current one ("AI") doesn't even do that — there's not even a positive scenario how the life of a common artist becomes better, unless "post-scarcity" truly happens (it won't).
---
†: To clarify, this is about modern artists, things are a bit different when we speak about "legacy" acts that jump started their careers in a different era.
‡: Even though in case of EU most artists entering didn't care and used their tourist visas because they did not make any money anyway.
The part that really stuck with me: how success in music now feels more like surviving a battle of attrition than "making it". The irony is brutal—more people are making music than ever, but fewer can live off it.
I'm disappointed - this article is very short sighted. Everything in it is about recording and making money from concerts and stuff. It's all modern. When was the time of the middle class musician? What was the distribution of musicians as a primary job vs all jobs?
Throughout history it seems that there has always been an imbalance of musicians that make good money and those that don't. It seems that most musicians did it for free as part of a community/spiritual ceremony, or did it as a part time thing.
The modern issues are related to the technological advancements. The true cause of issue the article talks about is right in the beginning of it - music has never been easier to make and record. Supply and demand?
Writers have been experimenting with paywalls (substacks etc) - musicians aren't? Indies keep complaining about streaming and platforms killing their livelihood but I wonder if this is just because the target for "justice" seems clearer (eg. Spotify cut, etc)
Seems to me that music has an additional challenge which is most revenue channels requires middlemen: streaming infrastructure, merch factories, venues owners, technicians, etc which artist can't/won't replace.
At some point musicians - as product creators - need to have a clear biz model for their enterprise and passion to try it. Not just passion to create, passion to sell.
Enjoy listening to Drake for the rest of your life.
The death of the middle class everything. I have no idea how median wage statistics are possible. There is not a single neighborhood in my city where median income in that neighborhood can afford rent or a mortgage in that neighborhood. It’s all non-wage sources of wealth and no traditional middle class lifestyle is possible
Yeah it's like who can afford a specific house.
80s entry level coder
90s team lead
00s manager
10s cto
20s cto with help from parents
Wage stagnation and inflation and asset inflation.
Few people should make a living with music, or indeed any other form of art. Art is a hobby.
Literally everyone is an artist, even if their art consists of bad doodles and singing in the shower. Sure, some people are more talented than that, but expecting to make a living with art? Nah...
is all art equal? is there no structure or history to art? is copying someone elses ideas the same as bringing new ideas to life? i contend that music is a discourse space where great minds show great structural concepts, and where minds with nothing to say merely regurgitate others ideas ad nauseum
Most of music is craft not art. People should be able to make a living from their craft
They been dead
When people use terms like "neofeudalism", this is the sort of thing we're talking about. It's capitalism working as intended. There are an increasing number of jobs that are only available to the children of the wealthy. There are several reasons for this:
1. Any of the creative professions have way more applicants than positions so nepotism dominates. It's almost shocking how many nepo babies there are in Hollywood. It infects every level. It could be that some rich person will fund your indie movie as long as you give a major role to their child. It can be family connections to studio decision-makers,. It can be currying favor with Hollywood heavyweights. Whatever. Either way, getting in as a nobody is increasingly difficult;
2. Education. First, you have legacies. Roughly a third of Harvard's undergrad class are legacies ie the children of wealthy donors. That's the real DEI. But also it's the cost. The wealthy can absorb the cost of an elite education.
This is a real issue with medical school. Someone can often graduate with $300-600k in student loan debt. By the time they finish residency they may owe $500k-1M. The wealthy can absorb this. There are a few medical schools now that offer free tuition thanks to some large endowments. Many medical schools try and have people from more diverse economic backgrounds but it's difficult. Not having to worry about money means you caa afford to spend a year doing unpaid research to pad your resume. The free tuition schools seem to have skewed more to students from wealthier backgrounds because they're simply better connected and better able to game getting into such schools;
3. Housing costs specifically and the cost of living generally. 30 years ago if you were trying to make it as a musician in LA you could rent an apartment for $300-400/month. You could live cheaply. You could chase that dream. Now? The average apartment seems to be near or over $2000/month.;
4. The disappearance of third spaces. Higher housing costs mean the higher cost of businesses. If a bar or a coffee shop needs now absorb rent of $200,000/year where once it was $10-20k, that affects what busineses are viable and for those that are, it's an input to the cost of everything. Well, those were performance spaces for up and coming acts. You see this in the UK, for example, where the number of pubs just keeps going down as they sold and converted into apartments. Community spaces just cannot survive with the high cost of property; and
5. The freedom to fail. I saw a clip of Allison Williams recently who acknowledge this. For those that don't know, she was one of the main cast of HBO's Girls. She's the daughter of Brian Williams, a long-time news anchor. Fun fact: the entire main cast of this show were all nepo babies. It cannot be overstated what relieving the fear of becoming homeless can do to your opportunities.
Now some, particularly here, have long pointed to tech as their key to social mobility. That's been true for a long time but I suspect many here are in for a rude shock. We're already seeing it with the layoffs and how many people apply for any given job. AI will make this worse.
And who do you think will get positions in this shirnking pool of opportunities? It'll be the same children of wealthy people. It'll be connections, access to funding and other factors that give you opportunities.
Housing costs specifically
This is a huge problem, and it's due almost entirely to bad government policies rather than "capitalism working as intended".
Interestingly, and that may be a personal opinion - I have bought more music from more obscure musicians in the last few years, mostly thanks to Bandcamp.
Before that, I mostly gravitated to 'blockbuster musicians', old classics, 1970s psychedelic rock. Today I buy some unknown musician's album every few days (and I pay what I'd pay for a 'proper' album, even if it is pay what you want).
Part of that is simply availability. The old record stores of old were often just "what's popular" with a side dish of "what the owner likes". Today? I found some Touareg rock band the other day. In the 1990s, that was virtually impossible even for music lovers.
Part of it is that today, I pay for what I like. Radio sucks, the classics are oversaturated, and often enough new releases are just qualitatively worse - both in composition as well as remasters which tend to sacrifice nuance for loudness. But indy bands? I don't expect perfection, but often enough find it.
Now, I understand I am a rare breed. In a Spotify world, the one buying FLACs is exotic. I do understand that the mid-range musician is not going to become a millionaire - but who ever did?
The example in the article sounds a lot like the artist has been bent over a barrel by the record company - a pattern even "successful" musicians have experienced. Maybe instead of chasing fame, the solution is to do your own marketing.
The musical middle class wasn’t thinned out by the audience, but by labels and streaming models. If you’re not topping the charts, you vanish between promotion costs and algorithmic obscurity - unless you go directly to the listener.
Has life ever been easy for musicians? Has it ever been easy to make money from making/playing music in the history of mankind?
Isn't it clear that we just need a levels.fyi for rappers?
The main rehearsal space in San Francisco closed more than two decades ago.
I venture that live music has suffered because of it.
...in Canada.
It's weird to call it dead because I'm not sure it was ever truly alive.
all this was obvious the moment napster became popular. and for more than a decade anyone who explained what was happening was ridiculed, especially in tech circles.
spotify in particular cemented a payment structure that disadvantages any “serious” music versus endless repeat pop songs, while also being completely corrupted by conflict of interest from record labels with an ownership stake. now they manufacture their own muzak and steer your playlist to it, draining the last bits of revenue possibility away from these “middle class musicians.”
youtube streamed music for free for years, paying no artists, and it was one of its core growth engines. completely asymmetrical outcome.
the whole thing denigrated musicians, and music itself. hordes of early online young tech professionals making great money at their office jobs poo pooing the concerns of an entire industry which previously enabled some of the most sophisticated artistic endeavors our culture ever attempted.
just dumb. a complete victory of lowbrow values.
baffling someone is writing this article in 2025. at every fork in the road, the path was taken that would give less revenue to the musicians. and ~no one in tech felt it was a problem.
talking about it like there is a revelation or an emerging phenomenon here mystifies, while rubbing salt in the wound.
OT, i love your username. if i walk 3 times anticlockwise around the local church, will i end up in fairyland?
"onetheless, the state has a role to play. The government has long forced commercial and campus radio stations to play at least 35 percent CanCon—that is, music that meets two of the four criteria of MAPL (music, artist, performance, lyrics): that the music was composed by a Canadian, performed by a Canadian, and recorded in Canada, with lyrics written by a Canadian. But imposing such requirements on internationally owned streamers has proven challenging."
When the state dictates artistic content, that is socialism.
What's the deal with always wanting to turn art into a day job, anyway? These things are almost antithetical, as exemplifies by thousands of YouTube channel that turned into soulless content-producers in an effort to keep a schedule.
Damn, people somehow made art in 10000BC, when everyone was a hunter-gatherer by necessity.
"as exemplifies by thousands of YouTube channel that turned into soulless content-producers in an effort to keep a schedule."
This means that a former musical artist became a Youtube content producer in order to earn a living. This does not illustrate the negative effects of paying musicians to make music.
What if you want to maximize your talent? I'm sure you're good at something; isn't it satisfying to get better at it? At some point you'll maximize the improvement you can make in your free time; if you get there before you reach the ceiling of your ability or your drive, then what else are you going to (want to) do?
This comment makes the same point, better than I did:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44410292
quite right. i happen to be an amazing musical genius with the keys to the future of the art, and i will not share my hobby work with you or the world because you just pulled the rug out from under my lifes mission by reducing everything to shopping mall McDonald's aesthetics. enjoy your oldies and cover bands.