The Defense of Liberal Arts Post

[Chris22]

One reason that some arts and humanities degrees result in little (or even negative) income growth is that they prepare people for jobs they're willing to do for less money.... Some other jobs pay more, in part because they're less pleasant to do, and many of those jobs seem to require STEM degrees.

I'd be surprised if that's true.  Most of the science/engineer types I know (and I work in a giant building full of them) are very very happy being science/engineer types.  It's only the peripheral BS (managing others, reporting metrics, etc) that pisses them off. 

[onlykelsey]

One reason that some arts and humanities degrees result in little (or even negative) income growth is that they prepare people for jobs they're willing to do for less money.... Some other jobs pay more, in part because they're less pleasant to do, and many of those jobs seem to require STEM degrees.

I'd be surprised if that's true.  Most of the science/engineer types I know (and I work in a giant building full of them) are very very happy being science/engineer types.  It's only the peripheral BS (managing others, reporting metrics, etc) that pisses them off.

I think you're right, Chris22, but I also think my STEM friends who have really exceptional incomes are ones that also excel in marketing/managing/reporting/recording time/etc fields (or at least are competent at it).  It seems like pure science/tech folks cap out their income really quickly, although they do start higher, for sure.

[Noodle]

I don't know enough about advanced classes in STEM subjects to know if it is the same there, but humanities subjects always seem to me HARDER to learn in isolation--ie, without classmates to bounce ideas off of and a teacher to steer/model/correct messy thinking and arguing. Studying English literature isn't about reading Oliver Twist--it's about figuring out what Dickens was doing when he wrote it, and why, and framing an argument as to why your answer to the question is better than others. I don't disagree that right now humanities degrees are risky and certainly a bad bet if you want to retire early (if I had millions to dispose of, I'd put it into scholarships in the humanities for students who don't have financial backing, so they can go into careers that are going to have low pay without also strapping on debt)  and it makes me sad (and worried) that humanities may be a career only for rich kids for awhile. When your field is about people thinking and writing, limiting the diversity of people participating is not healthy for it.

Not picking on you but in general about this thread: my motivation for going into an artsy career was to not have to want to retire so early. I.e. to find a job I'd actually enjoy doing at a moderate level for thirty years, rather than kill myself with misery for fifteen years and spend the next fifteen years getting over it.

Oh, I agree with you, actually; I'm happily employed in the humanities, won't be retiring early, and specifically decided not to pursue higher-paying, high-pressure professions that I knew wouldn't make me as happy even if they did make me a lot of money. I do think that even a decent, lower-paying humanities career is harder to achieve now that college is getting so expensive at the same time a lot of humanities institutions offer fewer good jobs (think of all the adjunct professors, unpaid or poorly paid interns, etc that so many organizations depend on.)

[lightmyfire]

I don't know enough about advanced classes in STEM subjects to know if it is the same there, but humanities subjects always seem to me HARDER to learn in isolation--ie, without classmates to bounce ideas off of and a teacher to steer/model/correct messy thinking and arguing. Studying English literature isn't about reading Oliver Twist--it's about figuring out what Dickens was doing when he wrote it, and why, and framing an argument as to why your answer to the question is better than others. I don't disagree that right now humanities degrees are risky and certainly a bad bet if you want to retire early (if I had millions to dispose of, I'd put it into scholarships in the humanities for students who don't have financial backing, so they can go into careers that are going to have low pay without also strapping on debt)  and it makes me sad (and worried) that humanities may be a career only for rich kids for awhile. When your field is about people thinking and writing, limiting the diversity of people participating is not healthy for it.

Not picking on you but in general about this thread: my motivation for going into an artsy career was to not have to want to retire so early. I.e. to find a job I'd actually enjoy doing at a moderate level for thirty years, rather than kill myself with misery for fifteen years and spend the next fifteen years getting over it.

I agree. It's actually interesting to me that I am now on the FIRE path considering that I was originally a complete romantic about finding the holy grail of art-related work.  When I finally got paid to work directly with art I didn't much care about retirement because it started out as one of those "I can't believe they pay me to do this!" things.  Which I think explains a big part of the pay differential between the arts and STEM jobs.  You end up competing with all these interns and volunteers with that starry-eyed view, and getting a job that pays, let alone pays decently for someone with multiple degrees, is really difficult.  Then you learn eventually that no matter how great your job is, anything that requires you to show up M-F 8-5 is still a bit of a slog...so maybe those STEM careers aren't looking so bad after all.  I honestly don't know how I would approach this if asked for advice by a starry-eyed, artistically inclined young person.  It's worked out well for me, but I've had to be incredibly creative, patient, and frugal to make it work.

[Gerard]

Some other jobs pay more, in part because they're less pleasant to do, and many of those jobs seem to require STEM degrees.

I'd be surprised if that's true.  Most of the science/engineer types I know (and I work in a giant building full of them) are very very happy being science/engineer types.  It's only the peripheral BS (managing others, reporting metrics, etc) that pisses them off.

We probably disagree less than we think we do... it definitely seems to be the "not getting to do what I trained to do" aspects of STEMmy jobs that encourage people to get out.

I also wonder if this is changing, or will change, over time. Startups and maker spaces feel a bit like the STEM equivalent of starting your own band, or forming an independent theatre troupe. So maybe more non-arts folks will have self-constructed careers in which the rewarding or creative parts of the day far outweigh the bullshit parts.

[LaserCat]

I don't have a Liberal Arts degree but a full on Fine Art degree.  (2 in fact)  I decided to go the commercial art route and became a video game artist.  It's been a really good career for me, and even though I've had to move about the country on a regular basis, I've rarely been out of work for more than a month or 2.  Good game developers (art, design, programming) are always in demand.  And, swinging back to the liberal arts degree,  I believe that's what a majority of our designers have because they have to be good at storytelling, quest design, combat design etc.  (Although some come from history, writing or arts backgrounds as well.)

I'll speak from a Fine Arts background because that's what I know, and I will say that I believe that artists should be fully aware about the cost of art school and the struggle that it can be when you get out of school to find a job in your career.  That being said, there is nothing wrong with going to college with the only goal in mind being that you will learn, grow and become a better artist. 

I also know plenty of artists who are perfectly happy doing some other low stress job so they can focus 100% of their creative skill at home and there is nothing wrong with that.  It's all a matter of perspective.  Do you need an art degree to be a great artist?  Absolutely not, and a student should be fully aware of the debt they will take when they choose this path.  Another thing to consider is that not all art schools are created equal, and you have to find one that has a strong program in what you want to do specifically.  Unfortunately, I think it's hard for an 18 year old to fully understand that, when many haven't even had the chance to live on their own yet before entering college.

I was always good at art and I've always loved it, I don't regret my decision and I'm a successful artist because of what I've learned on my own AND in college!

[bb11]

I got a BA in psychology. Doing pretty well as of now (and about to quit work to go back to school and get a free MBA), but things would have been easier if I had majored in STEM. I would recommend a STEM major to most people, but you can still do well without one.

I think education for education's sake is very valuable for society. The benefits to the economy, personal well-being, etc are enormous. I am very much in favor of aligning tax rates on unearned income with tax rates on labor income to help pay for those who cannot easily afford higher education. In the words of others in this thread, I am excited for the prospect of "stealing" from "the rich". ;)

[MoneyCat]

If I could do it all over again, I would never get a BA in English and an MS in Teaching. At the time -- the late 90s -- it seemed like a good idea. The United States was awash in wealth and lots of people made a living as writers, visual artists, musicians, etc. Teaching English generally consisted of providing literature survey courses where students learned about American and World culture and values through the words of great thinkers. Around 2001, education laws began to be passed which transformed American education from sharing culture and values to simply being about ones and zeros and Social Darwinism. At the same time, changes in technology began to allow piracy of the arts on an unprecedented scale and previously valuable arts became completely worthless as a result, since Congress did nothing to protect copyrights. Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Fast forward to today and I make an living as a test prep coach -- a job previously known as "teacher" -- and my meager earnings are more than what most rock stars make as evidenced by the drummer of a nationally prominent rock band going wild over my Discover It card when I bought a t-shirt at their merch booth after a show ("Whoa! Look who has a fancy card!" He exclaimed in awe). At one point, I tried to do some freelance writing as a side-hustle and the best I could get was $5 for 500 word listicles for blogs, because there is no longer any advertising revenue thanks to Ad-Block Plus.

If I could do it all over again, I would get a degree in fixing computers, because that job is never going to become obsolete in my lifetime. Who knew that any of this would happen twenty years ago, though? "Follow your passion" is bullshit advice.

[GuitarStv]

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

[MrMoogle]

"If you really want the key to success, start by doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing." - Brad Szollose
In the 90's and 2000's that was STEM.  In the future, who knows.

[MoneyCat]

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

Basically, the way this works is that businesses that allow file-sharing/video sharing are not legally liable for piracy that occurs using their services under the DMCA. Only the person who uploads the file is legally responsible for it. So copyright holders have to constantly threaten to sue individuals and file DMCA claims to get files taken down, while companies like Google's YouTube subsidiary etc. have no responsibility for it. Google and other companies are not responsible for policing their service to keep out copyrighted material. According to the government, that's the job of the copyright holder. It's a massive game of "whack-a-mole" that the copyright holders can never win. Meanwhile, Google rakes in the big bucks with ad sales on all these videos and files and searches. They are literally getting billions of dollars profiting off piracy and there is no legal recourse against them by the copyright holders.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ooeei]

"If you really want the key to success, start by doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing." - Brad Szollose
In the 90's and 2000's that was STEM.  In the future, who knows.

Skilled trades look like a good bet for the future.  Electricians, plumbers, welders, stuff like that.  Fewer and fewer people are able to do their own work on things, and the current crop of tradesman skews pretty old.  Despite the current glut of college students, going to a 4 year university to get a great office job is STILL the defacto "how to be successful" advice for anyone in high school.

I agree. It's actually interesting to me that I am now on the FIRE path considering that I was originally a complete romantic about finding the holy grail of art-related work.  When I finally got paid to work directly with art I didn't much care about retirement because it started out as one of those "I can't believe they pay me to do this!" things.  Which I think explains a big part of the pay differential between the arts and STEM jobs.  You end up competing with all these interns and volunteers with that starry-eyed view, and getting a job that pays, let alone pays decently for someone with multiple degrees, is really difficult.  Then you learn eventually that no matter how great your job is, anything that requires you to show up M-F 8-5 is still a bit of a slog...so maybe those STEM careers aren't looking so bad after all.  I honestly don't know how I would approach this if asked for advice by a starry-eyed, artistically inclined young person.  It's worked out well for me, but I've had to be incredibly creative, patient, and frugal to make it work.

The more fun a job is, the less the employer has to pay someone to do it.  It's REALLY hard to make a living at something hobbyists and overqualified people will do for free because they love it.  That's one advantage we STEM folks have.  Sure, someone might build some cool robots or something in their spare time, but there aren't too many folks doing safety calculations, researching material specifications, or writing test reports for fun after their workday is over. 

I never have to worry about a hobbyist taking my job and doing it for free.  Then again, the price I pay is that my job isn't fun enough for someone to WANT to do it without being bribed.

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

Basically, the way this works is that businesses that allow file-sharing/video sharing are not legally liable for piracy that occurs using their services under the DMCA. Only the person who uploads the file is legally responsible for it. So copyright holders have to constantly threaten to sue individuals and file DMCA claims to get files taken down, while companies like Google's YouTube subsidiary etc. have no responsibility for it. Google and other companies are not responsible for policing their service to keep out copyrighted material. According to the government, that's the job of the copyright holder. It's a massive game of "whack-a-mole" that the copyright holders can never win. Meanwhile, Google rakes in the big bucks with ad sales on all these videos and files and searches. They are literally getting billions of dollars profiting off piracy and there is no legal recourse against them by the copyright holders.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So how is Google supposed to police this?  They have someone manually review every video before it's uploaded?  I guess their employees have to also know every copyright that's out there as well, so they know what they're looking for. 

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the copyright holder be responsible for alerting hosting services when there's a breach.  I've seen plenty of youtube videos taken down for copyright violations within a day of being uploaded, I assume because the copyright holder let them know.  Sure there are some shady sites out there that blatantly take advantage of the rules, but the success of things like iTunes, and the continued money making of movie studios tells me that not too many people are being disencentivized by it yet.

[GuitarStv]

"If you really want the key to success, start by doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing." - Brad Szollose
In the 90's and 2000's that was STEM.  In the future, who knows.

Skilled trades look like a good bet for the future.  Electricians, plumbers, welders, stuff like that.  Fewer and fewer people are able to do their own work on things, and the current crop of tradesman skews pretty old.  Despite the current glut of college students, going to a 4 year university to get a great office job is STILL the defacto "how to be successful" advice for anyone in high school.

You know, I've heard this advice before . . . but really wonder about it.  I'm not a particularly gifted guy, but I can comfortably wire electrical connections, replace circuit breakers, hunt down open circuits, and connect electrical panels.  The internet will teach you how to do just about anything in short order.  The trades don't require secret or complicated knowledge.  If I can do it, anyone else can do it.

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

Basically, the way this works is that businesses that allow file-sharing/video sharing are not legally liable for piracy that occurs using their services under the DMCA. Only the person who uploads the file is legally responsible for it. So copyright holders have to constantly threaten to sue individuals and file DMCA claims to get files taken down, while companies like Google's YouTube subsidiary etc. have no responsibility for it. Google and other companies are not responsible for policing their service to keep out copyrighted material. According to the government, that's the job of the copyright holder. It's a massive game of "whack-a-mole" that the copyright holders can never win. Meanwhile, Google rakes in the big bucks with ad sales on all these videos and files and searches. They are literally getting billions of dollars profiting off piracy and there is no legal recourse against them by the copyright holders.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So how is Google supposed to police this?  They have someone manually review every video before it's uploaded?  I guess their employees have to also know every copyright that's out there as well, so they know what they're looking for. 

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the copyright holder be responsible for alerting hosting services when there's a breach.  I've seen plenty of youtube videos taken down for copyright violations within a day of being uploaded, I assume because the copyright holder let them know.  Sure there are some shady sites out there that blatantly take advantage of the rules, but the success of things like iTunes, and the continued money making of movie studios tells me that not too many people are being disencentivized by it yet.

I also see that Google is pretty good about taking down stuff that someone complains about, and am not really sure what else they could do.

[runningthroughFIRE]

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

Basically, the way this works is that businesses that allow file-sharing/video sharing are not legally liable for piracy that occurs using their services under the DMCA. Only the person who uploads the file is legally responsible for it. So copyright holders have to constantly threaten to sue individuals and file DMCA claims to get files taken down, while companies like Google's YouTube subsidiary etc. have no responsibility for it. Google and other companies are not responsible for policing their service to keep out copyrighted material. According to the government, that's the job of the copyright holder. It's a massive game of "whack-a-mole" that the copyright holders can never win. Meanwhile, Google rakes in the big bucks with ad sales on all these videos and files and searches. They are literally getting billions of dollars profiting off piracy and there is no legal recourse against them by the copyright holders.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So how is Google supposed to police this?  They have someone manually review every video before it's uploaded?  I guess their employees have to also know every copyright that's out there as well, so they know what they're looking for. 

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the copyright holder be responsible for alerting hosting services when there's a breach.  I've seen plenty of youtube videos taken down for copyright violations within a day of being uploaded, I assume because the copyright holder let them know.  Sure there are some shady sites out there that blatantly take advantage of the rules, but the success of things like iTunes, and the continued money making of movie studios tells me that not too many people are being disencentivized by it yet.

I also see that Google is pretty good about taking down stuff that someone complains about, and am not really sure what else they could do.

Youtube has an algorithm that scans all the videos uploaded for things that violate copyrights, and has policies that heavily favor rights holders over youtube content providers.  There's actually quite a bit of discontent with the system unfairly shutting down videos that legally fall under fair use among people who make their living through youtube content.

MoneyCat, I may be attributing someone else's comments to you (and if so, I apologize), but didn't you also mention how it's difficult to make money through freelancing because of AdBlock?  Wouldn't this also cut into Google's revenues from ads on their sites?

[MoneyCat]

Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

Can you elaborate on this part?  I haven't heard it before.

Basically, the way this works is that businesses that allow file-sharing/video sharing are not legally liable for piracy that occurs using their services under the DMCA. Only the person who uploads the file is legally responsible for it. So copyright holders have to constantly threaten to sue individuals and file DMCA claims to get files taken down, while companies like Google's YouTube subsidiary etc. have no responsibility for it. Google and other companies are not responsible for policing their service to keep out copyrighted material. According to the government, that's the job of the copyright holder. It's a massive game of "whack-a-mole" that the copyright holders can never win. Meanwhile, Google rakes in the big bucks with ad sales on all these videos and files and searches. They are literally getting billions of dollars profiting off piracy and there is no legal recourse against them by the copyright holders.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So how is Google supposed to police this?  They have someone manually review every video before it's uploaded?  I guess their employees have to also know every copyright that's out there as well, so they know what they're looking for. 

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the copyright holder be responsible for alerting hosting services when there's a breach.  I've seen plenty of youtube videos taken down for copyright violations within a day of being uploaded, I assume because the copyright holder let them know.  Sure there are some shady sites out there that blatantly take advantage of the rules, but the success of things like iTunes, and the continued money making of movie studios tells me that not too many people are being disencentivized by it yet.

I also see that Google is pretty good about taking down stuff that someone complains about, and am not really sure what else they could do.

Youtube has an algorithm that scans all the videos uploaded for things that violate copyrights, and has policies that heavily favor rights holders over youtube content providers.  There's actually quite a bit of discontent with the system unfairly shutting down videos that legally fall under fair use among people who make their living through youtube content.

MoneyCat, I may be attributing someone else's comments to you (and if so, I apologize), but didn't you also mention how it's difficult to make money through freelancing because of AdBlock?  Wouldn't this also cut into Google's revenues from ads on their sites?

Google will take down the video for a DMCA complaint, but the sheer number of violations makes policing it completely impossible. It's still the responsibility of the copyright holder to notify Google. Unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in a day and it would require an army of people working on behalf of the individual copyright holders to police this, when if Google did it themselves it would be much easier.

YouTube may have an algorithm that scans the videos for copyright violations, but clearly it's not working because I can go on YouTube right now and listen to any song I want without paying for it, watch pretty much any TV episode I want, watch entire Hollywood films, etc. The piracy is so rampant that people really don't need to ever pay for any music, show, or movie ever if they don't feel generous.

Metallica tried to warn people about this problem back in the 90s when Napster came out and now the problem is a million times worse.

The solution? Probably the only solution is to outlaw all file-sharing and tube sites completely or at least make the legal responsibility fall on the service provider which would essentially outlaw the service since the legal liability would be so high that it would be unprofitable to run the business

To answer the other part of your question, Google is facing a big revenue problem from Ad Block Plus, but at the moment they are still pulling down billions from the remaining ad revenue from people not using the plug-in just because of the sheer number of people who use their services. An ordinary person like me whose views would number only in the tens of thousands cannot compete in this kind of environment. I made $2 in ad revenue for about 100 blog articles I wrote, at which point I decided to shut down my blog because it was a waste of time. This problem has befallen a lot of formerly successful blogs. Just take a look at www.cuteoverload.com and read the last message from January to see what I mean.

YouTube is adjusting to the new reality by starting a paid service called YouTube Red where people can subscribe for exclusive content. In time, though, it's probably a losing proposition because all the YouTube Red content will be pirated thanks to the weak DMCA.

The laws need to change and they need to be enforced.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chris22]

Not to be confused with RedTube which is, uh, something completely different. 


(and NSFW, you've been warned)

[robartsd]

I think one reason copyright infringement is so rampant is that copyright holders have continously lobbied for (and gained) more and more control of their works. Copyright (at least in the US) is intended to give creatives a limited monopoly on thier works before the work enters the public domain. Originally US copyright only applied to works for which copyright was appled for and expired after 14 years (a second 14 year copyright could be applied for, but no more).

I don't think copyright needs to be strenghtend at all. I think the DMCA should be ammended to require copyrighted materials utilizing public domain material to list the public domain works from which they are derived (there are copyrighted DVDs of old movies where the only creative work not in the public domain is the menu). I also think that DRM keys for copyrighted materials should be placed in escrow to be publicly released upon the expiration of copyright and that DRM that interfers with "Fair Use" should be banned (likely to effectively ban DRM on any media "purchased" but possibly not on media "rented" - alternately we could sue the content industry for false advertising as "Digital Rights Management" when they really ment "Digital Restriction Management").

To better understand the problems of DRM see: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/

[MoneyCat]

I think one reason copyright infringement is so rampant is that copyright holders have continously lobbied for (and gained) more and more control of their works. Copyright (at least in the US) is intended to give creatives a limited monopoly on thier works before the work enters the public domain. Originally US copyright only applied to works for which copyright was appled for and expired after 14 years (a second 14 year copyright could be applied for, but no more).

I don't think copyright needs to be strenghtend at all. I think the DMCA should be ammended to require copyrighted materials utilizing public domain material to list the public domain works from which they are derived (there are copyrighted DVDs of old movies where the only creative work not in the public domain is the menu). I also think that DRM keys for copyrighted materials should be placed in escrow to be publicly released upon the expiration of copyright and that DRM that interfers with "Fair Use" should be banned (likely to effectively ban DRM on any media "purchased" but possibly not on media "rented" - alternately we could sue the content industry for false advertising as "Digital Rights Management" when they really ment "Digital Restriction Management").

To better understand the problems of DRM see: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/

I understand your point, but there is a massive difference between a situation like "Peter Pan" being copyrighted in perpetuity (or the ridiculousness with the "Birthday Song") and what the average artist suffers these days. For example, one of my favorite rock bands (the same band that was so impressed by my fancy Discover It card) has had several recent hit songs on the Billboard charts, but they needed to hold a Pledge Music campaign to be able to release a new album. Piracy has gotten so ridiculous that they couldn't make any money from a rock album through record sales anymore -- and it takes 288 million spins on Spotify for artists to get paid about $100,000 for their album, which is the average income of a Spotify employee who didn't actually create any of the material they profit from. This is unacceptable. Artists have a right to be paid for their intellectual property.

Another prominent example from another rock band is the popular band Gemini Syndrome. Despite being played a ton on rock radio, they were making poverty wages. Their guitarist ended up leaving the band because he could make a better living renting out rooms of his house on AirBnB. At the time, he was making only about $18,000/year touring constantly with basically no income from music sales.

Something needs to change here.

[Chris22]

^ I don't think that's new, most (musical) artists make most of their money on touring, not song sales. 


The flip side of the DRM ridiculousness was when my wife went to get a 5x7 wedding picture blown up to poster size at Kinkos for her parents' 35th anniversary party and was told the she couldn't unless she had a release.  I mean come on. 

[gluskap]

I majored in biochemistry but I took a lot of liberal arts classes for my electives including classes in art, philosophy, music theory, etc.  I believe it's important to get a well rounded education that includes studying the humanities but I believe it would be harder to get a well paying job with a humanities degree.  Not impossible but would require more work.

[robartsd]

Piracy has gotten so ridiculous that they couldn't make any money from a rock album through record sales anymore -- and it takes 288 million spins on Spotify for artists to get paid about $100,000 for their album, which is the average income of a Spotify employee who didn't actually create any of the material they profit from. This is unacceptable. Artists have a right to be paid for their intellectual property.

I agree that it is unfortunate that lesser know artists have such a difficulty getting compensation. Of course this has generally been the case throughout history. I think technology that makes sharing easy and cheap helps lesser know artists at least as much as it hurts them because it give them a path to exposure that isn't controlled by the big media companies. Unfortunately I don't see making sharing platforms liable for copyright infringment a viable means to improve the situation and it would harm quite a bit of creativity. Strengthing copyright laws helps make big media companies stronger but does not help independent artists.

The flip side of the DRM ridiculousness was when my wife went to get a 5x7 wedding picture blown up to poster size at Kinkos for her parents' 35th anniversary party and was told the she couldn't unless she had a release.  I mean come on.

Not sure what you're trying to say about DRM (cryptographically making viewing and copying harder) as enlarging a photograph taken 35 years ago would have nothing to do with DRM. Kinkos was right that legally a release from the photographer (copyright holder) was required to copy the photo. Traditionally, photographers made much of their profit on prints (session fees mostly covered expenses in the days before digital photography); today the event photography model ought to exchange a higher session fee for a license to use all the photographs from the session in any non-commercial way the person hiring the photographer would like.

[Chris22]

Not sure what you're trying to say about DRM (cryptographically making viewing and copying harder) as enlarging a photograph taken 35 years ago would have nothing to do with DRM.

Sorry, you are correct, but my point was the expansion of copyright laws that underscore DRM.

Kinkos was right that legally a release from the photographer (copyright holder) was required to copy the photo. Traditionally, photographers made much of their profit on prints (session fees mostly covered expenses in the days before digital photography); today the event photography model ought to exchange a higher session fee for a license to use all the photographs from the session in any non-commercial way the person hiring the photographer would like.

I'm sure they were 'technically correct' but my point was that do we really need to be protecting copyrights of a wedding photographer thirty five years later?  Who knows if the guy is still in business, or even alive?  Why isn't there a sunset clause of, I dunno, 5-10 years?  It goes to the point of copyright laws becoming ridiculous, thus losing support and compliance due to their ridiculousness. 

[mxt0133]

At the same time, changes in technology began to allow piracy of the arts on an unprecedented scale and previously valuable arts became completely worthless as a result, since Congress did nothing to protect copyrights. Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement and the revenues generate by those in the creative arts also contradict this statement.  For example, Napster and other file sharing sites was supposed to kill of the recording industry and make music superstars extinct like dinosaurs.  However, what has actually happened is that sales of records and singles are higher now than ever before even after adjusting for inflation.  Are overall album sales down? Yes, but total sales including singles are up because of Itunes and music streaming royalties.  People listen to music more now because then can listen to whatever they want on demand anywhere.

The same thing can be said about movies and TV shows, but every year box office sales are getting broken.  Even if actual movie ticket sales are only keeping up with inflation which they aren't.  The movie industry has added new sources of revenue by in movie product placement and online streaming revenue from Netflix and other services.  So that add at the end of movies saying piracy hurts people that make movies, the evidence doesn't actually support it.  I'm not saying that piracy doesn't lower the potential revenue but it has not lowered revenue that they said it would because the evidence doesn't prove it.  If it did we would not be making as much or the big budget movies that are being made now if they were really afraid that piracy would make people not go watch it in the movies.

Let's move on to books, again digital piracy of books were supposed to kill of book sales, but again, the revenue of books sales are up.  Here is a reference if you don't believe me.  http://fortune.com/2015/12/22/print-book-sales/

Digital books actually help more of the creative arts because people can now self-publish as has been the evidence in this very forum of people making money by self-publishing digital books.

YouTube has created thousands of jobs for people that had no chance of making it in the entertainment industry.  People make a living out of performing cover songs while paying royalties on the material.

People that were never going to pay for content resort to piracy.  Does technology make it easier absolutely, so technology has increased piracy.  But piracy increases to those that would not pay or could not pay for the content in the first place.  People still go to the movies and pay $20 a ticket even if they could easily download it.  I have bought more singles and albums because of listening to them free.  I could easily listen to it any time I want but for some dumbass reason I want to support the artist and pay for music I have listened to 1000 times and already downloaded illegally.

Is piracy illegal, YES.  Does it hurt artists, the evidence contradicts it.  If it really did hurt artists as much as they say it does then as a society we would pursue prosecution harder or artists would not be generating as much content as they are generating now.

If anything piracy allows those that could NOT afford the content to become fans and supporters of the creator and drive awareness vs increase revenue.

[Slee_stack]

The other poster has a point.  A lot of engineers have very poor written and oral communications skills.  They may be great at the science part, but they struggle to put together a coherent paragraph or two.  And it's not just the overuse of technical jargon (also a big problem). 

I've spent a good portion of my career "translating" the writing of engineers into English.  I feel more like a technical editor than an engineer sometimes. 

And, of course, many engineers/scientists in the USA are foreign born, and also struggle with communicating in English.

So to the STEM students out there:  You don't have to be masterful writer, but if you can communicate competently, you will be a better engineer.  Plus, I suspect there will always be a demand for those who can "translate" from engineerese into English, so you will remain employable even when other engineers might be getting laid off. 

So pay attention in that mandatory freshman English Comp course. :)

We call that being a 'Facilitator' where I work.  We're around 80% Engineers here.

Also, my condolences on putting up with Troylet for four years! 

[bryan995]

College is all about learning how to learn.
Once you learn how to learn, you can then learn anything, and become successful.

Sure - if you are the absolute best at what you do, then you can be successful in any industry/field.
But by the numbers alone, a STEM degree is a better ROI than any other degree by far.

Once we have created a AI work force to handle EVERY task we humans toil with day in and day out, and there is an excess of every resource, and no diseases, and nothing to worry about at ALL ... Then and only then can a liberal arts degree be acceptable.  Until then, we have more important problems to solve! /endrant

[MoneyCat]

At the same time, changes in technology began to allow piracy of the arts on an unprecedented scale and previously valuable arts became completely worthless as a result, since Congress did nothing to protect copyrights. Major companies like Google make a large portion of their profits through piracy these days and nobody stops it.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement and the revenues generate by those in the creative arts also contradict this statement.  For example, Napster and other file sharing sites was supposed to kill of the recording industry and make music superstars extinct like dinosaurs.  However, what has actually happened is that sales of records and singles are higher now than ever before even after adjusting for inflation.  Are overall album sales down? Yes, but total sales including singles are up because of Itunes and music streaming royalties.  People listen to music more now because then can listen to whatever they want on demand anywhere.

The same thing can be said about movies and TV shows, but every year box office sales are getting broken.  Even if actual movie ticket sales are only keeping up with inflation which they aren't.  The movie industry has added new sources of revenue by in movie product placement and online streaming revenue from Netflix and other services.  So that add at the end of movies saying piracy hurts people that make movies, the evidence doesn't actually support it.  I'm not saying that piracy doesn't lower the potential revenue but it has not lowered revenue that they said it would because the evidence doesn't prove it.  If it did we would not be making as much or the big budget movies that are being made now if they were really afraid that piracy would make people not go watch it in the movies.

Let's move on to books, again digital piracy of books were supposed to kill of book sales, but again, the revenue of books sales are up.  Here is a reference if you don't believe me.  http://fortune.com/2015/12/22/print-book-sales/

Digital books actually help more of the creative arts because people can now self-publish as has been the evidence in this very forum of people making money by self-publishing digital books.

YouTube has created thousands of jobs for people that had no chance of making it in the entertainment industry.  People make a living out of performing cover songs while paying royalties on the material.

People that were never going to pay for content resort to piracy.  Does technology make it easier absolutely, so technology has increased piracy.  But piracy increases to those that would not pay or could not pay for the content in the first place.  People still go to the movies and pay $20 a ticket even if they could easily download it.  I have bought more singles and albums because of listening to them free.  I could easily listen to it any time I want but for some dumbass reason I want to support the artist and pay for music I have listened to 1000 times and already downloaded illegally.

Is piracy illegal, YES.  Does it hurt artists, the evidence contradicts it.  If it really did hurt artists as much as they say it does then as a society we would pursue prosecution harder or artists would not be generating as much content as they are generating now.

If anything piracy allows those that could NOT afford the content to become fans and supporters of the creator and drive awareness vs increase revenue.

Pretty much everything you said is incorrect, but I understand the lure of free stuff. I like getting free stuff too. That's kind of the cornerstone of Mustachianism. But free stuff has a price and that price is the removal of entire occupations that are based on the arts. It's not an illusion that my brother who is a world-famous expert on teaching English as a second language overseas made no money with his latest book on the subject when it was pirated two days after release on Amazon. That's just the new reality. And people like getting stuff for free so much that there is no incentive to ever change things.

If any lurkers are reading this, get your degree in computers or engineering. Those occupations aren't really that hard if you are smart and you will make lots of money pretty easily. Forget about the arts completely. They are as dead as the telegraph and slide rule.

[Yaeger]

I'm the bad person you can point your finger at. I pirate/download the majority of my books. I've actually downloaded large 8,000+ book files that could theoretically keep me reading my Kindle at a book every 2 days until my death in 50+ years. I typically read 2 books per week, so I have own tons of physical books, but typically have 900+ on my Kindle and I refresh it every 6 months or so.

The good books that I look forward to, novelty books, and the classics I typically buy. However, I'd say that's only maybe 10% of the total volume.

[shelivesthedream]

I make my living in the arts. It's fucking hard sometimes and you have to be your own manager, accountant, career coach, office cleaner, HR... But I'm doing it and it's working and I like it. If you are willing to spend 50% of your time on your art and 50% of your time on admin and give up some other stuff like job security, you can have an adequate career in the arts.

[GuitarStv]

I'm the bad person you can point your finger at. I pirate/download the majority of my books. I've actually downloaded large 8,000+ book files that could theoretically keep me reading my Kindle at a book every 2 days until my death in 50+ years. I typically read 2 books per week, so I have own tons of physical books, but typically have 900+ on my Kindle and I refresh it every 6 months or so.

The good books that I look forward to, novelty books, and the classics I typically buy. However, I'd say that's only maybe 10% of the total volume.

I think that classics are maybe the only morally defensible books to not buy.  Typically the authors are long dead, and a large number of them are public domain.

If you want to read a current best seller, why not take it out from your library?

[robartsd]

Blame Disney and the other big companies that want to hold works in perpetuity. The same laws that govern "Mickey Mouse" (aside: literally just heard the "Mickey Mouse Song" in my head as I was typing that) are the ones that force Kinko's to require and artist's release before doing an enlargement.

Old Mickey Mouse content should fall into the public domain. That wouldn't hurt the Disney company at all. Mickey is obviously iconic enough to protect as a trademark which would be enough to prohibit unlicensed works based on Mickey. Disney might loose control of some other old characters, but Mickey can be protected indefinately under trademark law.

[MoneyCat]

I'm the bad person you can point your finger at. I pirate/download the majority of my books. I've actually downloaded large 8,000+ book files that could theoretically keep me reading my Kindle at a book every 2 days until my death in 50+ years. I typically read 2 books per week, so I have own tons of physical books, but typically have 900+ on my Kindle and I refresh it every 6 months or so.

The good books that I look forward to, novelty books, and the classics I typically buy. However, I'd say that's only maybe 10% of the total volume.

I know it is against the TOS to advocate for illegal activity on this forum, but I'm sure that many Mustachians secretly do so. They are only human, after all, and people love "free" stuff when there is no real penalty for taking it.

This whole conversation makes me think of the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me" where filmmaker Michael Moore travels to his hometown of Flint, MI to document the unraveling of their community in the wake of General Motors shutting down the auto plant to move the jobs to Mexico. There's a famous scene in the film where a woman who lost her job has started a new business selling rabbits for "pets or meat". She then proceeds on camera to demonstrate how you beat a rabbit to death and skin it.

We watched this movie in a class on globalization in college and I stunned my classmates by proclaiming that the "rabbit lady" was actually the hero of the movie. All the company executives interviewed for the film were saying "The workers need to find new skills to make themselves competitive" and that's exactly what the "rabbit lady" did. Auto manufacturing clearly wasn't going to be her future anymore, so she learned to butcher small animals for profit. Grotesque, maybe. But she was able to survive.

It's similar with artists these days. It's no longer a viable career option to be a musician, writer, visual artist, etc., so people need to develop other skills that they can use to make some money. I recommend checking out places like Khan Academy or ifixit.com to pick up new marketable skills for free.

[Orvell]

It's similar with artists these days. It's no longer a viable career option to be a musician, writer, visual artist, etc., so people need to develop other skills that they can use to make some money. I recommend checking out places like Khan Academy or ifixit.com to pick up new marketable skills for free.

.... But it is? There are artists in the world. It's HARD. But there are people who make a living off it. And it's still valuable. It's not some defunct option or job, some bygone idea. Art is VALUABLE. It is wroth money. It is worth not abandoning simply because capitalism makes it hard (because people think it should be free).

When people say, "being an artist in this day and age can't be done," like you are saying, you are giving yourself and others an excuse to not pay for it. Because the people you are taking money from "can't exist."

Keep it up and we won't.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, my friend.

[MoneyCat]

It's similar with artists these days. It's no longer a viable career option to be a musician, writer, visual artist, etc., so people need to develop other skills that they can use to make some money. I recommend checking out places like Khan Academy or ifixit.com to pick up new marketable skills for free.

.... But it is? There are artists in the world. It's HARD. But there are people who make a living off it. And it's still valuable. It's not some defunct option or job, some bygone idea. Art is VALUABLE. It is wroth money. It is worth not abandoning simply because capitalism makes it hard (because people think it should be free).

When people say, "being an artist in this day and age can't be done," like you are saying, you are giving yourself and others an excuse to not pay for it. Because the people you are taking money from "can't exist."

Keep it up and we won't.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, my friend.

Your argument seems similar to what I hear when I tell people not to play the lottery because it's a waste of money. "But I saw some people on TV who actually won! I have a chance!" Due to technology and lax (and unenforced) copyright laws, it's not possible for the average person to make a living in the arts anymore. If you are a trust fund baby and you just want to have some fun, then by all means be an artist. But the average joe who wants to monetize skills to live comfortably and/or become wealthy? Run away. Far away.

[Orvell]

Your argument seems similar to what I hear when I tell people not to play the lottery because it's a waste of money. "But I saw some people on TV who actually won! I have a chance!" Due to technology and lax (and unenforced) copyright laws, it's not possible for the average person to make a living in the arts anymore. If you are a trust fund baby and you just want to have some fun, then by all means be an artist. But the average joe who wants to monetize skills to live comfortably and/or become wealthy? Run away. Far away.

LOL
You are comparing the act of making ART to playing the lottery.
Since when is painting, creating, making unique compositions, putting forth new ideas into the world... the same as scratch cards?

There are actual jobs that exist that artists fall into.
Graphic designer
Children's book illustrator
New York Times cartoonist
Video game designer
Movie storyboarder
Animator
Set designer
Character designer
Architect
Song writer
Freelancer

These are careers that exist today.

Making it as an artist is hard, and I have not succeeded. I'm not saying everyone can do it. I'm not saying everyone should.

I'm saying it's VALUABLE, and that it shouldn't be dismissed or taken for granted.

ETA: quote fail. Fixed.

[GuitarStv]

Who designs the art and writes the music for video games?  The story?  Who develops the sounds, icons, layout, and user interfaces for the software on your PC, cell phone, and tablet?

Who acts in the movies that people go to see every weekend, or the TV shows that are viewed every day?  Who designs their costumes, who designs and develops the CG used in the movies?  The sets?  Writes for them?  Who does the scores for them?

Who designs new furniture for Ikea?  Who does the layouts for magazines and webpages?  Who draws and writes comic books?  Where do the plans for architecture come from?  What about public art installations?  Museums?

There seem to be an awful lot of OK paying jobs in the arts for people that are still kicking around.  If they're desirable there's going to be competition . . . but there's competition for any desirable job.

[MoneyCat]

Who designs the art and writes the music for video games?  The story?  Who develops the sounds, icons, layout, and user interfaces for the software on your PC, cell phone, and tablet?

Who acts in the movies that people go to see every weekend, or the TV shows that are viewed every day?  Who designs their costumes, who designs and develops the CG used in the movies?  The sets?  Writes for them?  Who does the scores for them?

Who designs new furniture for Ikea?  Who does the layouts for magazines and webpages?  Who draws and writes comic books?  Where do the plans for architecture come from?  What about public art installations?  Museums?

There seem to be an awful lot of OK paying jobs in the arts for people that are still kicking around.  If they're desirable there's going to be competition . . . but there's competition for any desirable job.

Like I said, some people win the lottery, but most people lose it. Do you want to risk your future on the hopes and prayers that you will get the needle in the haystack or do you want to guarantee good money for your entire career? It's a no-brainer. The trust fund kids can go design some video games. The normal people can get good-paying jobs in tech.

[Slee_stack]

You can bring a knife to a gun fight and win, but its probably going to require a lot more skill and luck.

If you choose a Liberal Arts education over a Technical one for the purposes of maximizing your financial return, I'm afraid you just chose a butter knife.  Hopefully that butter knife didn't cost as much as a gun would have!

If you happen to have super secret ninja skills and can wield a butter knife with eye blurring robotic precision, then of course you have a very good chance to win.

However, if you're the far more common clumsy oaf, that has a hard time deciding what side of the toast to use your newly acquired butter knife on, you are in for a world of disappointment and pain.

I am in incredible awe of the super secret Ninjas.  I'm tired of stepping over the countless oaf bodies.  The carcasses can get really stinky.  I'll leave it at that.

[shelivesthedream]

Like I said, some people win the lottery, but most people lose it. Do you want to risk your future on the hopes and prayers that you will get the needle in the haystack or do you want to guarantee good money for your entire career? It's a no-brainer. The trust fund kids can go design some video games. The normal people can get good-paying jobs in tech.

I AM LITERALLY HAVING A CAREER IN THE ARTS RIGHT NOW. ME. RIGHT HERE.

And let me tell you, it's not because I won the career lottery. It's because I wanted to do it, despite the drawbacks (not as much money, antisocial hours, job insecurity), and I was willing to work both hard and smart to do it, and I went in with open eyes and not some airy-fairy dream. I had a "day job" for six months while I was first getting into it but I would say that now, two years after graduation, I am having a decent career. I could certainly get more work and make more money (yes, working in the arts) if I hustled harder but I like my low-stress, low-key lifestyle right now. Money really is not the most important thing in life, as we all know.

[Threshkin]

Like I said, some people win the lottery, but most people lose it. Do you want to risk your future on the hopes and prayers that you will get the needle in the haystack or do you want to guarantee good money for your entire career? It's a no-brainer. The trust fund kids can go design some video games. The normal people can get good-paying jobs in tech.

I AM LITERALLY HAVING A CAREER IN THE ARTS RIGHT NOW. ME. RIGHT HERE.

And let me tell you, it's not because I won the career lottery. It's because I wanted to do it, despite the drawbacks (not as much money, antisocial hours, job insecurity), and I was willing to work both hard and smart to do it, and I went in with open eyes and not some airy-fairy dream. I had a "day job" for six months while I was first getting into it but I would say that now, two years after graduation, I am having a decent career. I could certainly get more work and make more money (yes, working in the arts) if I hustled harder but I like my low-stress, low-key lifestyle right now. Money really is not the most important thing in life, as we all know.

(Hopefully) No one is arguing that it is not possible to have a successful Arts career.  There are lots of people that are successful and there are many different definitions of "success".

But for many people a STEM degree has a better potential ROI.

[beltim]

If you are a trust fund baby and you just want to have some fun, then by all means be an artist. But the average joe who wants to monetize skills to live comfortably and/or become wealthy? Run away. Far away.

I think it's fair to say that the average artist doesn't go into it to become wealthy.  Instead, many people prioritize other factors over monetizing skills.  Although I'm not an artist, I can easily understand sacrificing 50% of career earnings to pursue a career and jobs that you actually enjoy, instead of simply pursuing something acceptable that maximizes earnings.  I've certainly done this, and I think it's fairly common on this forum. 

[LiveLean]

In high school I worked as a clerk at a large (now-defunct) chain of video stores. Two of my store managers were graduates of the University of Virginia, where I would soon be attending. They majored in art history and were making $38K as store managers. This was in 1986, so $38K is equal to $83K today. (No wonder this chain of video stores went under; they were paying their managers way too much!)

I remember thinking to myself, "No way am I going to spend four years in college and end up a freakin' video store manager!"

I did major in liberal arts, majoring in political science and communications. But I got a jump-start on a media career by spending most of my time in college working for the student media outlets and doing many internships and freelance gigs.

The difference between STEM majors and the liberal arts is that STEM provides you with immediate obvious job opportunities. With liberal arts, you better have a plan of attack long before you graduate. Otherwise you will be working in the 2016 equivalent of video store management.

[Orvell]

If you are a trust fund baby and you just want to have some fun, then by all means be an artist. But the average joe who wants to monetize skills to live comfortably and/or become wealthy? Run away. Far away.

I think it's fair to say that the average artist doesn't go into it to become wealthy.  Instead, many people prioritize other factors over monetizing skills.  Although I'm not an artist, I can easily understand sacrificing 50% of career earnings to pursue a career and jobs that you actually enjoy, instead of simply pursuing something acceptable that maximizes earnings.  I've certainly done this, and I think it's fairly common on this forum.

:)
One last thing before I'll shut up, too.

We don't want only trust fund babies to be the people making art.

We need stories, operas, ikea furniture designs, movies, raps, paintings, sculptures to be created by not just the Well To Do (caps required) but by minorities, by underprivileged populations, by people who don't see themselves represented already. Because the art we see, the stories we read, the songs we listen to... actively shape not just how we experience the world, but what we think the world can and should be.

If only one sort of person is creating these things... that's not a world I want to live in.

;) SO go support the arts, kids! And go make some yourself.

[shelivesthedream]

Like I said, some people win the lottery, but most people lose it. Do you want to risk your future on the hopes and prayers that you will get the needle in the haystack or do you want to guarantee good money for your entire career? It's a no-brainer. The trust fund kids can go design some video games. The normal people can get good-paying jobs in tech.

I AM LITERALLY HAVING A CAREER IN THE ARTS RIGHT NOW. ME. RIGHT HERE.

...

(Hopefully) No one is arguing that it is not possible to have a successful Arts career.

...

Unfortunately some are:

it's not possible for the average person to make a living in the arts anymore.

I was financially supported through my first degree and lived at home during my second degree (my arty one), but I have not been receiving economic outpatient care since 'launching' shortly after graduation. So I'd argue that maybe I am slightly above average in that I came out of my degrees better off financially than most people (although I do have student loans, but I'm English so they're reasonable), but since graduating I've been pretty average (certainly no trust fund baby!) and yet I am making a living in the arts.

[Mmm_Donuts]

Like I said, some people win the lottery, but most people lose it. Do you want to risk your future on the hopes and prayers that you will get the needle in the haystack or do you want to guarantee good money for your entire career? It's a no-brainer. The trust fund kids can go design some video games. The normal people can get good-paying jobs in tech.

I AM LITERALLY HAVING A CAREER IN THE ARTS RIGHT NOW. ME. RIGHT HERE.

And let me tell you, it's not because I won the career lottery. It's because I wanted to do it, despite the drawbacks (not as much money, antisocial hours, job insecurity), and I was willing to work both hard and smart to do it, and I went in with open eyes and not some airy-fairy dream. I had a "day job" for six months while I was first getting into it but I would say that now, two years after graduation, I am having a decent career. I could certainly get more work and make more money (yes, working in the arts) if I hustled harder but I like my low-stress, low-key lifestyle right now. Money really is not the most important thing in life, as we all know.

Giant plus one to this. I have stayed out of this thread because I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't appreciate (or rather, won't appreciate or acknowledge that they appreciate) the arts, which is something I love and have made a very good living doing for the past 20+ years. I have not "won the lottery" by being an artist, I am not a rare genius nor do I have some sort of magic touch. I am surrounded by artists who have also managed to support themselves by doing creative things. Do you know what it takes to "make it?" Two things: a strong and almost stubborn desire to do so, and lots and lots of hard work.

If you don't want to be an artist, don't. If you do, and have skills you'd like to develop, then by all means, do it. It is the most challenging yet most fulfilling way to live life, and I wouldn't trade it for one minute of being an engineer or business person or dentist or anything that society deems more practical. This forum is full of people who make sacrifices and take chances to live their lives differently from the majority. Being an artist is yet another way of living differently. I have mad respect for anyone who does it, because I know what kind of drive and dedication it takes to make it work.

[MoneyCat]

It's important to find what you are really truly passionate about...





...and then figure out how to do it on nights and weekends after you spend your weekdays doing the job that makes you wealthy.

[Mmm_Donuts]

It's much harder to be successful in the arts if you're a hobbyist working on it in dribs and drabs. That's not to say it can't be done, but if you're going to do it, better to go in fully, in my experience.

I know a few people who painted or wrote in their spare time, outside a full work schedule in a non-creative field, and they are lifetimes behind those of us who work at it for decades at a more dedicated pace. This is where the hard work and dedication come in. Most who are making a living in creative fields do it full time.

Moneycat, clearly working in arts is not for you, but no need to make pronouncements on something you don't seem to know much about.

[Miskatonic]

It's important to find what you are really truly passionate about...

...and then figure out how to do it on nights and weekends after you spend your weekdays doing the job that makes you wealthy.

Did you pat yourself on the back after posting this clever little talking point?

More people than you realize (people in this very conversation) make a good living doing what they are passionate about. Most people here are working toward FIRE so they can pursue their passions. Some are just working toward FI, because they are already pursing their passions and don't want to RE. It might be inconceivable to you, but it's not that uncommon.

Art is everywhere. Some people just don't (or can't) see it.

[LaserCat]

It's much harder to be successful in the arts if you're a hobbyist working on it in dribs and drabs. That's not to say it can't be done, but if you're going to do it, better to go in fully, in my experience.

I know a few people who painted or wrote in their spare time, outside a full work schedule in a non-creative field, and they are lifetimes behind those of us who work at it for decades at a more dedicated pace. This is where the hard work and dedication come in. Most who are making a living in creative fields do it full time.

As someone who has been a successful working artist for more than 10 years, and thriving, not just paying the bills, I agree with this completely!  I got here because I WORKED my butt off!  Years of practice, years of study!  Most forms of art, while they do require talent, for the most part just require blood, sweat and tears.  Anyone can learn how to draw but most people don't bother, why?  Because it takes literally years of drawing and painting, every, single, day, in order to get good at it.  If you want to go into the arts because you love it, then by all means DO IT!  Just go all in!

[ender]

It's much harder to be successful in the arts if you're a hobbyist working on it in dribs and drabs. That's not to say it can't be done, but if you're going to do it, better to go in fully, in my experience.

I find the first part of your post particularly interesting.

Years ago, when deciding about whether to do music or engineering as a college choice, my private lesson teacher presented me with the question, "if you worked fulltime, would you be living for the weekends to play music?" as a way to help decide which college path to pursue. I was practicing a ton, playing music all the time and loving it. At that time I was considering either a music conservatory type of college or "normal" engineering. When it came down to it I wouldn't be living for those times. And if it didn't work out? Way harder to recover from that mistake, particularly if that came with a huge price tag.

So I chose engineering, while simultaneously staying involved in a variety of musical and "creative" endeavors. Playing music. Working at a small concert venue. Listening to music (that $2000 unmustachian speaker system has brought me so much joy because of this dual interest! Hearing beautiful piano music or orchestral music on good speakers sometimes puts tears into my eyes).

I have never regretted that decision.

I think what it comes down to is that while it's harder to succeed with an LAS degree, it's easier to accidentally get a degree more in the arts. Need to go to college and have no clue what your life goals are?  LAS is the default choice. Engineering requires a lot more deliberate decision making, particularly since the degree requirements are normally considerably more comprehensive (most have a far more extensive "core" than LAS at my college). You rarely will accidentally end up with an engineering degree, particularly since the coursework is challenging and time consuming.

So if someone is inclined towards indifference and drifting aimlessly the likelihood of that person ending up with an engineering degree is much lower than LAS, assuming we require that person to manage to finish college.