←back to thread

The Death of the Middle-Class Musician

(thewalrus.ca)
300 points pseudolus | 2 comments | 28 Jun 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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. andrepd ◴[29 Jun 25 11:40 UTC] No.44412291[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>44412312 #
2. eru ◴[29 Jun 25 11:44 UTC] No.44412312[source]▶
> 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...