What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
[deleted]
Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
31–40 of 133 posts
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#32Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#33What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
It’s especially hard to defend given that the barriers to entry for creatives today (thanks to cheap editing equipment and Internet distribution) is extremely low.
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#34What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
No, the author is saying the share of revenue the distributors (tech, music industry) are receiving is misaligned with the value they're adding. Compare content creators with a SWE. They both produce the product being sold, what percentage of the revenue should they receive?
This “people should be paid based on the value they create” myth comes up a lot on HN. Compensation is only tied to value creation as a maximum level. The actual compensation level is whatever people are willing to work for while doing good-enough work. If you want to price your work based on value, you need to run your own business.
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It is not only my nature, but human nature. No it isn't. It's the nature of about 30% of people, who can't be happy without knowing that someone else is worse off. Many of the characteristics that you ascribe to stupidity are actually examples of selfishness, and you're leveraging the existence thereof to rationalize your own selfishness. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 Your wealth likely derives f…
Actually. I find it the opposite. The 30 percent you speak of don’t care and are not in the web yelling eat the rich.
The real problem is the 70% who can’t be happy knowing that others are better off than them.
(It’s actually not 70% most don’t care but anybody who says eat the rich is the problematic person)
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the author is saying the share of revenue the distributors (tech, music industry) are receiving is misaligned with the value they're adding. Compare content creators with a SWE. They both produce the product being sold, what percentage of the revenue should they receive?
> what percentage of the revenue should they receive? Wherever the supply and demand curves intersect. Otherwise, society is less efficient in allocating resources.
The deeper question is how much control labor has over its provision of supply (monopoly) and how much control firms have over their demand for labor provisioning (monopsony). Both can be inefficient operators in the Econ 101 view of the world.
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#37It just comes down to the fact that music is cheap. Outside of a very small cohort of star artists, musicians just don't create anything that people at large value to any significant extent. Only a very small portion of your fans would be willing to pay for a CD or a T-shirt; most just have a song or two in a playlist somewhere, and if you make your music unavailable on that steaming platform, they won't even notice.
> steaming platform
Please tell me you meant to do that? Either way, I'm using it from now on!
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#38Another piece generalizing artist to musicians, while this race to bottom has decimated most other independent creative professions beyond music, for much longer. I thought spotify was going to democratize music?! I laughed then, I still laugh. New boss just like the old boss, someone once said...
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not only my nature, but human nature. No it isn't. It's the nature of about 30% of people, who can't be happy without knowing that someone else is worse off. Many of the characteristics that you ascribe to stupidity are actually examples of selfishness, and you're leveraging the existence thereof to rationalize your own selfishness. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 Your wealth likely derives f…
> Your wealth likely derives from a mixture of raw talent, hard work, luck, and preferential attachment This is a disturbing viewpoint to see on HN. We already went down this path (a few times) and it resulted in >100 million deaths in the 20th century.
Try arguing with substance instead of hyperbolic (and specious) comparisons.
Preferential attachment is a well-documented economic phenomenon, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment
Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off
#40What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…
There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? Or did you just think about paintings?