This probably deserves a much longer essay, but it's interesting to me how closely this argument tracks pro-union/anti-union and regulation/de-regulation argume

This probably deserves a much longer essay, but it's interesting to me how closely this argument tracks pro-union/anti-union and regulation/de-regulation arguments. There's a good system-level argument for things like certain regulations, certain unions, patent law, copyright law, etc. The long-term benefits exceed the shorter-term costs. And these sorts of arguments can also be extended to why it makes good sense (and why it is a societal benefit) to give a middle-class income opportunity to a certain level of musician, when being left purely to the free market might not allow it. The problem is that we aren't really noticing the negative effects of not having that. There's a ton of pretty good music coming out from the ever-replenishing generation of musicians that is motivated to produce for 2-3 years just out of deluded dreams before they burn out from the lack of lifestyle-supporting income. You get lots of simple pop forms, looping electronica, mashups, and exaggerated dipthongs. Meanwhile, we're probably getting a lot less of any of the sorts of revolutionary music that could come from a talented artist being financially encouraged for a decade or more. The tragedy is that we probably won't ever know what we're missing.