4 ms·
Seriously. They also ignore the fact that the productivity of classical music performance has increased. Four musicians and their instruments can perform a str
by i_am_proteus 7y ago
Seriously. They also ignore the fact that the productivity of classical music performance has increased.
Four musicians and their instruments can perform a string quartet for a crowd the same today as they could in 1850.
Four musicians and an engineer with instruments and recording gear can record that track today and make it available to the masses via one of a number of media vehicles-- and that recording and those mechanisms are different today than they were in 1995, than they were in 1965, and it's something that was entirely impossible in 1850.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- skybrian 7y agoYou might also think about the effects of amplification and large video screens that can allow some live performances to reach more people. But we should ignore that, because the point of the comparison is to find something that hasn't changed between now and then and compare the cost of labor. This is of course cherry-picking, but it's not intended to be typical. It's a striking example.
- rahimnathwani 7y agoIn your example, you have two groups of four musicians, one with an engineer, and one without. - Group A has the same productivity as a similar group from 1850 - Group B (with the engineer and recording gear) has way higher productivity due to mass distribution Because the two labour markets are connected (people can move between markets A and B), the folks in Group A have gotten pay increases due only to the increases in productivity in market B.
- anm89 7y agoIf you honestly believe that the salaries of musicians are tied to the efficiencies at which they can produce units of music I have some bridges I'd like to sell you.