> Does that make sense to you? Yes, but not to Baumol's theory. Your description sounds like an excellent summary of the labor theory of value. How does this c

> Does that make sense to you? Yes, but not to Baumol's theory. Your description sounds like an excellent summary of the labor theory of value. How does this connect to musicians making more money? Once all of those former farmers rush into manufacturing because the price equilibrium is reached for food, why doesn't that depress factory wages and thereby reduce the musician's leverage to demand a higher salary for staying a musician? I keep rereading Vox's summary and one on The Economist, but I'm not seeing the evidence that musicians' wages were incommensurate over the century analyzed, or confirmation that other measures of music productivity like audience members reached per year remained fixed. If the musician's general relative economic class is unchanged, why invoke opportunity cost of other labor sectors as a factor? Or, if the general public has higher wages and the demand for music is inelastic, they can be stretched more for it, why not suppose the artists know their talent pool is limited and leverage that to increase their cut? I thank you very much for taking the time to try to explain this to me, in case I've inadvertently gotten you frustrated, and I blame myself for this apparent mental blind spot I can't shake.