She didn’t mistreat thousands of warehouse employees or spy on and manipulate three generations with social media to do it.
Maybe, but most music industry jobs are kinda shit same as any other job. The people that help set up the stage, the people working on her makeup, costumes, the people working in the labels, cleanup crews after concerts, people doing marketing/promotion etc. they all contribute to her success. Sure it’s overall probably a bit less exploitative than Amazon warehouses but exploitation still happens.
I’d be curious to hear an actual Marxist analysis of Swift’s relationship to the means of production because it’s clearly different than the owner of a company.
For one, Swift is actually a major contributor the production and is actually necessary unlike CEOs. She also doesn’t have control of the stadiums that she performs at, so it’s harder to say that she’s profiting off of their surplus labor.
While it’s true that she obviously couldn’t do this stuff alone, I’d like to see an analysis sketched out for celebrities or prominent athletes in general.
On the flip side, who is benefitting from her billions, other than herself and her immediate family?
While billionaires are scum, a good chunk of their money is tied up in businesses that keep tens/hundreds of thousands of people worldwide employed.
I like Taylor Swift, but I don’t know her well enough to know if she actually is the exception to the rule. None of us do. The real question is “what does she need $1b for?”
I’m gonna side track a little, but it’s actually super cool how many people we meet these days that are more class conscious. I feel like when I was younger people instantly idolized the rich for no good reason.
I forget what podcast was, maybe Cognitive Dissonance, but the hosts were talking about extreme wealth, and made an argument that maybe society should cap that shit. So, for example, if you make a billion and 300 million dollars a year, that 300 million automatically gets transferred to government social programs to help the community around you. It seems harsh at first, but when you stop to consider how much a billion dollars is, and how it’s basically impossible to spend that much money, and just having that much money automatically generates millions more for you everyday, there’s no point to having more than that. There is no thing you can buy that costs more than a billion dollars, unless you’re buying up entire companies. Doing something like that would act as a breaking mechanism to prevent run away wealth disparity like we have now.
Imagine living on a planet with millions of people struggling day to day with bare essentials like food and water and also having people that own enough money help millions. Why is it ok to hort wealth while you could easily help a lot of people? Like dont get me wrong, Taylor Swift is a cool artist not doing anything considered wrong by society. I simply find it odd to see people literally starving or freezing to death outside in the winter while they could be helped and no one bats an eye.
Oh I think you totally have a point. Came across this post in the main feed. The moral thing for her to do would be spend a shit ton of that wealth helping people in need. I was just commenting about how it’s nice for someone to end up rich without being a complete piece of crap to get there.
Good for her. She didn’t mistreat thousands of warehouse employees or spy on and manipulate three generations with social media to do it.
I’m okay with her being the exception to the rule, as long as she doesn’t turn into a monster.
It’s not hard.
You can’t reach billion dollars without exploitation
Maybe, but most music industry jobs are kinda shit same as any other job. The people that help set up the stage, the people working on her makeup, costumes, the people working in the labels, cleanup crews after concerts, people doing marketing/promotion etc. they all contribute to her success. Sure it’s overall probably a bit less exploitative than Amazon warehouses but exploitation still happens.
You don’t make a billion dollars on your own.
I’d be curious to hear an actual Marxist analysis of Swift’s relationship to the means of production because it’s clearly different than the owner of a company.
For one, Swift is actually a major contributor the production and is actually necessary unlike CEOs. She also doesn’t have control of the stadiums that she performs at, so it’s harder to say that she’s profiting off of their surplus labor.
While it’s true that she obviously couldn’t do this stuff alone, I’d like to see an analysis sketched out for celebrities or prominent athletes in general.
Damn, lots of people made good points.
I guess I was just engaged in wishful thinking.
On the flip side, who is benefitting from her billions, other than herself and her immediate family?
While billionaires are scum, a good chunk of their money is tied up in businesses that keep tens/hundreds of thousands of people worldwide employed.
I like Taylor Swift, but I don’t know her well enough to know if she actually is the exception to the rule. None of us do. The real question is “what does she need $1b for?”
I mean, you also have a point.
I’m gonna side track a little, but it’s actually super cool how many people we meet these days that are more class conscious. I feel like when I was younger people instantly idolized the rich for no good reason.
I forget what podcast was, maybe Cognitive Dissonance, but the hosts were talking about extreme wealth, and made an argument that maybe society should cap that shit. So, for example, if you make a billion and 300 million dollars a year, that 300 million automatically gets transferred to government social programs to help the community around you. It seems harsh at first, but when you stop to consider how much a billion dollars is, and how it’s basically impossible to spend that much money, and just having that much money automatically generates millions more for you everyday, there’s no point to having more than that. There is no thing you can buy that costs more than a billion dollars, unless you’re buying up entire companies. Doing something like that would act as a breaking mechanism to prevent run away wealth disparity like we have now.
Imagine living on a planet with millions of people struggling day to day with bare essentials like food and water and also having people that own enough money help millions. Why is it ok to hort wealth while you could easily help a lot of people? Like dont get me wrong, Taylor Swift is a cool artist not doing anything considered wrong by society. I simply find it odd to see people literally starving or freezing to death outside in the winter while they could be helped and no one bats an eye.
Oh I think you totally have a point. Came across this post in the main feed. The moral thing for her to do would be spend a shit ton of that wealth helping people in need. I was just commenting about how it’s nice for someone to end up rich without being a complete piece of crap to get there.
Hmm I bet she has her own clothing line.
/s?
Oh no, I don’t really follow her that much. Is there some horrible thing I don’t know about? Man, I was just hoping for one semi decent celebrity.
Its impossible to make that much money with out exploiting the labour of workers