[ghaff]

I'm not sure why the downvotes. That's absolutely a fair comment. There are some cases where creative work can benefit your day job through visibility and related skills. (A talented amateur actor is probably going to be better at presentations for example. And being that really good presenter at your company's user group event every year isn't going to hurt you.) But it seems a good point overall. Being great on some instrument probably isn't going to be a great argument for why you should get promoted at a non-music-related position.)

[Invictus0]

It's a bad comment because it totally misses the actual dynamics of the creative marketplace--that is, superstars-take-all. It has nothing to do with the "fun" of the work. The superstars in the creative industries are making 7-8 figures and everyone else is making 4-5 figures while trying to become a superstar.

[ghaff]

And I would say that going into a field that requires hitting the jackpot to not be waiting tables as a day job isn't a great strategy from an expected earnings perspective. (Which isn't to say people shouldn't do it if that's their thing.)

[m463]

I would also say, people make more money doing stuff that's hard. (and of course the bar goes up)

[ghaff]

I'd say "hard" is a necessary but not sufficient condition. People (individually or in the aggregate) also need to be willing to pay you specifically a lot of money for what you specifically bring to the table that, in many creative fields, requires being very top tier (and lucky).

In the arts, the equivalent of a mid-tier developer makes jack squat.