3 ms·

I don't see how the linked article supports your editorializing in the headline.

MarkPNeyer 17y ago
If anything, this article contradicts the editorializing - the cost effect increases the salaries of musicians and artists.
- pwnstigator 17y ago
  Artists face inverse-BCD. They aren't qualified for other jobs (primarily because of their lack of a resume) so they lose out on the options that someone with 5 years' experience as a corporate grunt would have. This makes them poor relative to the corporate grunt. We, as entrepreneurs, are also facing inverse-BCD with the bad economy, as everyone familiar with the phrase "multiple liquidation preferences" is aware. VCs aren't issuing shitty term sheets because they're in trouble-- the money they're investing was raised before Sept. 2008-- but because entrepreneurs have fewer options in traditional employment than they did 3 years ago.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
It would have been more precise to say BCD explains why most artists have trouble finding paying gigs. Wages for artists rise, their output stays more or less the same [1], so the proportion of artists whose output is good enough to justify the rising price shrinks. The artists who aren't "good enough" (whatever that means), or have trouble convincing buyers that they are "good enough", have to take other jobs, e.g. as waitstaff, to make ends meet until their careers take off. [1] Mass production has made some kinds of artists more productive, like novelists and screenwriters, but the net effect is a similar winner-take-all situation. Many unknowns compete to be the next Umberto Ecco or Dan Brown.
- tlb 17y ago
  I don't think the BCD effect goes as far as you say. In a nutshell, the effect is that because artists can make $X working day jobs, you have to pay O($X) for them to perform. But this effect stops working before artists price themselves out of the market, because artists actually like performing and adjust their price to clear the market. This is why you can hire a really good band to play at your party for only several hundred bucks.

If anything, this article contradicts the editorializing - the cost effect increases the salaries of musicians and artists.

pwnstigator 17y ago
Artists face inverse-BCD. They aren't qualified for other jobs (primarily because of their lack of a resume) so they lose out on the options that someone with 5 years' experience as a corporate grunt would have. This makes them poor relative to the corporate grunt. We, as entrepreneurs, are also facing inverse-BCD with the bad economy, as everyone familiar with the phrase "multiple liquidation preferences" is aware. VCs aren't issuing shitty term sheets because they're in trouble-- the money they're investing was raised before Sept. 2008-- but because entrepreneurs have fewer options in traditional employment than they did 3 years ago.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago

It would have been more precise to say BCD explains why most artists have trouble finding paying gigs. Wages for artists rise, their output stays more or less the same [1], so the proportion of artists whose output is good enough to justify the rising price shrinks. The artists who aren't "good enough" (whatever that means), or have trouble convincing buyers that they are "good enough", have to take other jobs, e.g. as waitstaff, to make ends meet until their careers take off. [1] Mass production has made some kinds of artists more productive, like novelists and screenwriters, but the net effect is a similar winner-take-all situation. Many unknowns compete to be the next Umberto Ecco or Dan Brown.

tlb 17y ago
I don't think the BCD effect goes as far as you say. In a nutshell, the effect is that because artists can make $X working day jobs, you have to pay O($X) for them to perform. But this effect stops working before artists price themselves out of the market, because artists actually like performing and adjust their price to clear the market. This is why you can hire a really good band to play at your party for only several hundred bucks.