←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: 0s | 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 #
skeeter2020 ◴[29 Jun 25 16:14 UTC] No.44414213[source]▶
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.

replies(14): >>44414333 #>>44414403 #>>44414406 #>>44414602 #>>44414691 #>>44414778 #>>44414843 #>>44415383 #>>44415464 #>>44415489 #>>44415785 #>>44416240 #>>44419572 #>>44439326 #
candiddevmike ◴[29 Jun 25 16:41 UTC] No.44414406[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>44414993 #
ajsnigrutin ◴[29 Jun 25 17:57 UTC] No.44414993[source]▶
So why not have the worker get/keep more of his money, instead of giving it to a different group of "others"?
replies(4): >>44415084 #>>44415744 #>>44417086 #>>44419106 #
MathMonkeyMan ◴[29 Jun 25 18:10 UTC] No.44415084{3}[source]▶
Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much.
replies(3): >>44415132 #>>44415213 #>>44417100 #
1. motorest ◴[29 Jun 25 18:27 UTC] No.44415213{4}[source]▶
> 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?

replies(1): >>44416014 #
2. MathMonkeyMan ◴[29 Jun 25 20:11 UTC] No.44416014[source]▶
I was responding to the question:

> So why not have the worker get/keep more of his money, instead of giving it to a different group of "others"?

The quote is implying: "rather than tax people and give that money to others, just have people keep the money they make."

My point is that this would not necessarily help the taxi driver much, since he probably doesn't pay much in taxes anyway. His issue is that his wage is not high enough.

One could argue that taxi driving shouldn't exist or should be relegated to some impoverished underclass, or one could argue that the issue is with the taxi driver's lifestyle expectations and not with the low wage, or that taxi drivers should find other employment, thus reducing the supply of drivers and either raising wages or "rightsizing" the driver workforce.

In any case, I don't agree with the parent poster's implication that lowering taxes is a viable alternative to tax-funded universal basic income.

Lowering taxes benefits most those who pay a lot of taxes, and those are the people who are least directly affected by the removal of tax-funded welfare programs. Sending the money to "others" is the point.

Keep in mind that the taxi driver is just a made up example, and I myself am not sold on the idea of universal basic income.