[sjtindell]

I don’t see this at all. They didn’t make less than you because of some moral failing by society at large. They made less because there is such a glut of artists that the bottom pay rate is literally less than zero, hence “do it for the exposure”. There is more art created every day today than ever before. The old school art forms you think are so crucial just aren’t.

[qeternity]

Exactly this. All of the holier than thou disgust at economics and ROI just means OP doesn’t understand those are the consequences of demand.

The reality is that the vast majority of people would rather entertain themselves shopping in retail than going to a symphony. Pass judgement all you like, but it won’t change the reality that people simply don’t value “the arts” as much as you do (or at least, the specific arts that you do).

[kube-system]

Poor symphony pay is not because of labor oversupply. It’s due to a lack of revenue. Many rely highly on grants and donations to make payroll, with ticket sales only being a small fraction of their income. The budget is determined by how many wealthy donors send in money.

[amanaplanacanal]

That feels like a semantic distraction to me. Is it too much supply, or not enough demand? I think they both mean the same thing.

[kube-system]

It’s more complicated than people buying fungible quantities of widgets. A donors choice to donate is not really linked to supply of labor. Wages are more greatly linked to the supply of rich philanthropists in the local area, than the supply of labor. One orchestra can supply an infinite number of philanthropists. It’s not a consumable.

[vimax]

Nothing shows this like walking in Austin and seeing homeless musicians on every corner just as good as the live band you paid to go see.