Interestingly, if one wanted to look at a present-day example of the problems being discussed by this excellent post, consider acting as a profession.

The commercial theater business is largely structured to reduce supply to a level that more equally approaches demand. The number of people who want to make acting their profession is large. But the number of jobs is very small in comparison. The result is that the cost of entry is much more than just talent and training. Legit ways demand grit, tenacity, development of a great network and the ability to make income as a valet, waiter, etc while having enough time to train, audition, network and self-produce. More exploitive ways include being a “chore-whore”, pay-to-play or worse (Harvey Weinstein et al). Most people drop out after a year or so of trying and some can’t even try because they took on so much college debt they simply can’t afford the cost of living in a major market like NY or LA.

The vast majority of money is not being made by creatives, it’s being made by the business intermediaries and colleges that claim to offer a path to success. The few performers at the top of the food chain (regardless of how great they are at their work) and various gatekeepers are the bourgeoisie, the personal assistant supplied for them who are working at intern wages are the proletariat.

What happens when the majority of our industries are like this? Let’s hope we figure out how to make acting a better profession beforehand. Andrew Yang’s $1,000 / month would help change the dynamics for starving artists and reduce the exploitation in the business.