McFreedom?

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/26/02 at 9:18 AM, David Miller <damille@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> i tend to think that the notion of 'exploitation' is an
> entirely subjective one. in the case of the music industry, if
> you've got a band or artist whoring themselves to the label, to
> pepsico, to the public, then it's not exploitation. the label
> then becomes pimp.

Exploitation is hardly subjective when you consider the relationship
between corporate earnings and the average person's take home pay.

Try this about the gap between productivity and wages:

"Here's another way to think about the growing gap between productivity
and wages. According to the World Bank, in 1966, U.S. manufacturing
wages were equal to 46% of the value added in production (value-added is
the difference between selling price and the costs of raw material and
other inputs). In 1990, that figure had fallen to 36%."

(See more at Doug Henwood's site:
http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Stats_earns.html)

Not sure what you mean by "whoring" in this context. Do you mean that if
I stand out on a street corner with my laptop and a lewd outfit, I'll
get picked up by a major label? I didn't know they were that desparate
for (non)talent.

To cite the example of Prince again, when he has to re-record his
compositions to get control away from Warner's, I'd say he looks more
like an down-on-his-luck employee than an artist.

> but if it truly is exploitation, then the positive effect of a
> free market system [as we almost have] is that the market will
> correct itself. that's one of the wonders of capitalism:
> freedom.

Certainly there's no cost to shout in the marketplace, but there IS a
cost to be heard.

The water is usually "free" at a restaurant, but just try going in and
asking for just a glass of water.

-Tad