←back to thread

The Death of the Middle-Class Musician

(thewalrus.ca)
300 points pseudolus | 4 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 #
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 #
WarOnPrivacy ◴[29 Jun 25 07:30 UTC] No.44410992[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>44411050 #
eru ◴[29 Jun 25 07:41 UTC] No.44411050[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>44411402 #>>44411434 #>>44418257 #
surgical_fire ◴[29 Jun 25 09:00 UTC] No.44411434[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>44411753 #>>44412717 #
bigfishrunning ◴[29 Jun 25 12:51 UTC] No.44412717[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>44412977 #>>44416174 #>>44418070 #
kaibee ◴[30 Jun 25 00:52 UTC] No.44418070{5}[source]▶
Look, its pretty simple. Here's a microcosm example: There is a German ship-builder that exclusively builds luxury yachts. They have ~2,000 highly skilled craftsmen, engineers, etc.

This company only exists because wealth is concentrated enough to support a market for it.

That company consumes about 4 million skilled-labor-hours a year to provide this service.

This means that skilled-labor-hours are more scarce/expensive for _everyone_, because the on any given year, there are only so many skilled-labor hours that exist. These labor hours require about three decades of investment from society to produce (public education/childcare/etc).

Bezos may not buy a super-yacht every year, but as a class, the super rich consume an insane labor hours.

replies(1): >>44418943 #
1. buttercraft ◴[30 Jun 25 03:15 UTC] No.44418943{6}[source]▶
"Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy.
replies(1): >>44419150 #
2. kaibee ◴[30 Jun 25 03:46 UTC] No.44419150[source]▶
> "Consume" labor hours? What does that even mean? Those laborers get paid, and then they spend the money they get. That money is circulating through the economy.

Money isn't stuff. Yes, those craftsmen get paid, but when one of them has something he needs done, some service provided, or some physical resource, he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else.

Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large? You could for example, with ~4 million skilled labor hours a year, build a lot of housing. You could build factories that provide for the needs the people. Hell, you could just give people time-off to, y'know, live and enjoy life (and perhaps, uh, have _children_, which the current system seems to be very efficient at disincentivizing).

replies(1): >>44419469 #
3. buttercraft ◴[30 Jun 25 04:44 UTC] No.44419469[source]▶
> he ends up paying more for the labor, because he is competing in the same labor market as everyone else

You'll have to explain that more. Ship builders aren't competing with plumbers.

>Don't you think spending the working time of 4 million labor hours a year, building megayachts, is perhaps not the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large

Well, that's a drop in the bucket. But you could apply this reasoning to any form of luxury goods. Where do you draw the line? Nice clothes? Fancy watches? Sports cars? Five-star restaurants? Are any of these "the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large?" Who decides what goods and services are worthy?

> and perhaps, uh, have _children_

You think people are having fewer children because luxury yachts are being built?

replies(1): >>44441863 #
4. kaibee ◴[02 Jul 25 10:04 UTC] No.44441863{3}[source]▶
> You'll have to explain that more. Ship builders aren't competing with plumbers.

Sure, on any given year. But the current economic organization of society wasn't born yesterday. On a longer timescale? Absolutely are.

> Well, that's a drop in the bucket. But you could apply this reasoning to any form of luxury goods.

Yes.

> Where do you draw the line? Nice clothes? Fancy watches? Sports cars? Five-star restaurants? Are any of these "the most productive/ROI generating activity for society at large?" Who decides what goods and services are worthy?

The neat thing about market economies is that you don't actually have to draw a line anywhere. You can just reduce income & wealth inequality via taxes and markets will sort it out. If you had taxed capital gains such that Bezos would have had to liquidate 10x - 100x in Amazon stock to buy his yacht, he likely would have settled for a smaller, but still perfectly acceptable yacht, and so on down the wealth ladder.

> You think people are having fewer children because luxury yachts are being built?

Yes I think income/wealth inequality + the amount of labor hours demanded from people to just stay in place is why people are having fewer children.