←back to thread

The Death of the Middle-Class Musician

(thewalrus.ca)
300 points pseudolus | 8 comments | 28 Jun 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.379s | source | bottom
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[29 Jun 25 06:43 UTC] No.44410806[source]▶
> 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.

replies(31): >>44410825 #>>44410866 #>>44410867 #>>44410916 #>>44411075 #>>44411231 #>>44411300 #>>44411331 #>>44411377 #>>44411383 #>>44411390 #>>44411522 #>>44411551 #>>44411588 #>>44411793 #>>44411818 #>>44412810 #>>44413214 #>>44413504 #>>44413995 #>>44414020 #>>44414102 #>>44414213 #>>44414713 #>>44414846 #>>44415180 #>>44415597 #>>44415836 #>>44416489 #>>44416737 #>>44422633 #
eru ◴[29 Jun 25 07:11 UTC] No.44410916[source]▶
> [...] 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.)

replies(12): >>44410945 #>>44410948 #>>44410992 #>>44411081 #>>44411415 #>>44411614 #>>44412062 #>>44412259 #>>44412291 #>>44412373 #>>44412671 #>>44414457 #
1. noelwelsh ◴[29 Jun 25 07:19 UTC] No.44410948[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44411097 #
2. eru ◴[29 Jun 25 07:50 UTC] No.44411097[source]▶
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(Wilkinson_an...

Especially the failures to replicate.

replies(3): >>44411268 #>>44411417 #>>44411421 #
3. anon_e-moose ◴[29 Jun 25 08:22 UTC] No.44411268[source]▶
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?
4. vixen99 ◴[29 Jun 25 08:57 UTC] No.44411417[source]▶
See also 'The Spirit Level Delusion' by Christopher Snowdon. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/th...
5. noelwelsh ◴[29 Jun 25 08:57 UTC] No.44411421[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44411700 #
6. eru ◴[29 Jun 25 09:49 UTC] No.44411700{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44412287 #
7. trust_bt_verify ◴[29 Jun 25 11:39 UTC] No.44412287{4}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44412670 #
8. bluGill ◴[29 Jun 25 12:45 UTC] No.44412670{5}[source]▶
a book is not a study a either.