Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipsi | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of a couple of married friends of mine. The wife played a classical musical instrument (e.g., not an electric guitar) and had her sights set on being a professional. While working towards that she did a lot of teaching/practising/etc, and her students would often say something along the lines of "I'm so envious of all this time you have to practice music! How are you able to do it?!" and her reply was always a bit of a let-down/reality check for them: "my husband works in tech."

Not quite independently wealthy, but I imagine there's a fair few artists out there in a similar position.

View on HN

Yeah, similar situation with:

- My brother who is a writer while his wife works at an industrial job that pays exceedingly well

- My friend who is an artist, whose husband owns an engineering firm with big medical device contracts

- My other friend who is a nature photographer, whose husband works in tech

- Yet another friend who is a musician, whose wife works in tech

- Another friend who runs a dog shelter, whose husband is a high paid engineer

- My other friend who is a writer, whose girlfriend is a real estate investment manager at a large bank

- My friend who is a social worker helping at-risk youth, whose husband is an oil and gas executive

- And yet another friend who makes jewelry and sews bags, whose wife owns an investment management firm

- Finally, a friend who volunteers to catalogue deer populations for conservation, whose boyfriend just happens to be a big wig executive for the city

I could go on, I see this phenomenon everywhere. There are no free lunches in life, someone is always footing the bill... just follow the money.

"What do you call a drummer without a girlfriend?"

"Homeless."

I had to constantly remind myself, when my college friends were going off to do startups that they wouldn't be sleeping under a bridge if they failed.

Even something as simple as a supportive family is a huge leg up compared to those who don't have it.

“Even something as simple as a supportive family“

That’s a strange wording, isn’t a supportive family widely known to be an absolutely huge benefit?

I think the implication is that, as opposed to starting a romantic relationship with someone who can support you or a side hustle or etc., having a supportive family is much more passive (and somewhat a roll of the dice, but generally speaking if you were lucky/privileged enough to be born into a family who can emotionally and/or financially support you, there probably isn't much labor/effort you had to put into to make it that way).

It's for sure a huge benefit; I think their point is that it's a huge benefit that doesn't require effort (just chance, or maintenance of good communication/relationship).

Everyone in silicon valley is familiar with founders that got seed money or connections from friends and family. My point is that even having a safe place to sleep isn't assured for some people, and folks should remember that when they pat themselves on the back for 'taking risks' founding a startup. Some people would be taking much larger risks than others.

What do you call a girl on the arm of a harmonica player?

A tattoo.

I wonder how many people there are out there supporting partners working on their struggling startup hmm.

I'd like to see a list of jobs for which:

1. We generally value as a society

2. Two people both working the job and married to each other cannot afford to raise two children.

There are some jobs which we romanticize as being this way (musicians and other artists being a big example), but are we okay with e.g. social workers all either starving, or from wealthy backgrounds?

Raising two children is a job in and of itself. Considering our children are the future's consumers, you'd think it would pay better.

Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Teachers can afford to raise children.

This really depends on the state, but in many areas in the south, they cannot.

((Assuming we're talking about the US))

Both my parents were teachers in the South and I had everything I needed and a lot of what I wanted, including computers when they were really expensive. I even grew up in a house.

A lot of (rural) areas in the South are so poor, teachers are among the higher pay scale because they have a steady paycheck with health insurance. My area was a city though, so teachers were on the lower end.

Well yeah. Just not their own.

Snark aside, it's hard to imagine how you could raise kids plural on what a teacher makes here in Seattle. Even the absolute top of the teacher salaries here, after 12 promotions and with a PhD, pay about what my very first tech job did, many years and much inflation ago. I would never have tried to raise kids on that money.

> Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Maybe not fresh-out-of-college but after 5ish years they almost certainly can afford it.

The playground supervisors probably can't though.

In most places in the USA, two married social workers can afford to raise two children without starving. It's only a few expensive areas where this is impossible.

Employers in high cost areas take advantage of the informal subsidies being discussed here to underpay social workers (as well as other socially valuable occupations such as teachers). But that won't change until the workers move away or switch occupations. There's just no incentive for employers to pay living wages as long as workers are willing to accept less.

If they're directly employed by the government, that's one thing. Nonprofit sector is another thing entirely, with generally poorer pay and benefits.

There are jobs that we pay lip service to, like musicians and teachers. But ultimately, the jobs we actually value are people in finance who make sure that our savings don't disappear.

Garbage people.

Aside: what is the gender neutral term for Garbage Man? Garbage people sounds like I'm disparaging them.

"Garbage collector"?

Sanitation workers

This is lots of people who work in nonprofit.

I worry there's a bit of HN bias here. I don't know anyone whose partner owns an investment management firm or similar.

I know a fair few day jobbing musicians and creatives of other stripes though, only one of which with parents of any real means.

One is a manager at a theatre, one does care work, one does WordPress and a bit of JS for small companies.

The most full-time musician I know did have the richest parents growing up, but he makes his cash teaching and doing session stuff in local theatres.

Given how income distributions work, I think day jobbing creatives are very much the majority.

Oh, you’re not wrong. There are lots of day-jobbing creatives that I know as well.

I’m one of them. I work a good tech job and do photography as a hobby.

Forgive me if I seemed overly focused on these folks and their lucky circumstances. If I’m being honest, I’m a bit jealous they get to spend all their time focused on their creative interests when I only get to do it part time.

If money wasn’t a requirement, I’d be out photographing every day instead of writing web code.

All in all, life is good though, so even if I’m a teeny bit jealous, I’m grateful for how good I have it in life. I’m pretty lucky, all things considered!

Heh, sorry if I misread or sounded narky! That category one is clearly there and influential, but I don't think you suggested they were everywhere.

I'm impressed by those who find the time and energy to be consistent with a craft, on top of the pressures of work and family.

I like a dabble here and there at lots of things, but don't make the time and don't follow through enough. Something to aspire to.

my partner is a working artist and, though successful, would not be able to live in our city comfortably if they weren't with me (or someone else with similar income). it's depressing, although I'm thrilled to help. it means I can't easily quit if I want to pursue another interest. it means we both have incentive to stay together even if something goes wrong romantically. neither of these points are a problem for us right now, but I am sure many artists do struggle with them.

How does that create incentive for you to stay with them if something goes wrong romantically?

Because there's a whole lot of room in between wanting to be in a romantic relationship with someone and wanting to see them homeless.

Athletes as well. I don't see how a "husband works in tech" answer is a letdown though, as really, what's a marriage for except creating the circumstances from which to grow. Over the decades my tech jobs have supported grad students, authors, craftswomen, actresses, athletes, among others and it was a pleasure watching them level up and grow. If I were ever to be married, earning enough to support arts or athletic pursuits would be pretty ideal. They're how you make kids brilliant and not be boring.

> what's a marriage for except creating the circumstances from which to grow

This is absolutely not in line with how most people I interact with seem to view marriage nowadays, especially not my fellow university students back when I attended.

From my perspective I think younger people mostly seem to view marriage as restricting, or backward and outdated, not an opportunity for something better.

I especially think younger people don't like the idea that in order to have freedom to pursue the things you love, you might need to marry someone who supports you financially. Otherwise you will be too busy financially supporting yourself to have that same freedom.

> younger people don't like the idea that in order to have freedom to pursue the things you love, you might need to marry someone who supports you financially.

How many people have ever liked it? Hasn't it been one of the few avenues available for lots of people to pursue things they couldn't without financial help? What's a viable alternative?

I don't know about if people "liked" marrying in order to have financial support.

My point was just that marrying someone to financially support you used to be culturally accepted, maybe even expected, and now it is less so.

Especially since most marriages can't afford to keep the household on a single income anymore anyways.

> My point was just that marrying someone to financially support you used to be culturally accepted, maybe even expected, and now it is less so.

Man marrying his wive to financially support him was accepted and expected? Really?

It absolutely was accepted - not in terms of being supported by her labour, but “marrying up” ie marrying someone from a family of higher social standing and wealth to improve your own station was a common aspiration of a middle class man.

Before the 20th century marriage and inheritance was practically the only way to climb the social ladder and acquire meaningful wealth. It’s basically half of what Balzac wrote about.

I imagine those young people that see themselves being in a position to provide financial support might find marriage restricting, backward and/or outdated.

Maybe, but I think it's not limited just to the "breadwinner" side.

Among people I know who are my age, there is a real attitude that they should not have to attach themselves to another person. They want to self actualize without compromise, so if marriage (or honestly, even monogamy) is not something they want they shouldn't have to do it.

Part of this mentality is totally fair. No one should be forced to marry, or live monogamously or anything else if they don't want.

Where the disconnect lies is the self actualizing without compromising thing. They are often angry at the world because they cannot live their way, but often finding a supportive partner would allow them to, or at least a lot closer to what they want than when they are struggling on their own.

There are exceptions to every rule of course, and the situaton has changed significantly with all-software productions, but... If you dig deeper into many electronic music producers bio, you realize they were sort of rich-kids. First and foremost, hardware costs real money. And this is gambling money, since you typically dont know what is going to come out of that project. And secondly, you need sare time on your hand, to be able to playfully explore the space... Both things are typically hard to find with the working class.

I know some successful musicians, DJ's, photographers, and videographers.

One thing they all have in common? Mommy and Daddy were loaded.

Steve Aoki comes to mind as an example. His family founded the food chain Benihana.

Also pretty common with authors iirc - a spouse with an income that provides stability.

That said, also easy for people to use this as an excuse.

The plot of Breaking Bad?

Yup, my brother is literally doing this. He stays at home, plays video games, writes his book. His wife literally works a coal mine to fund his career.

Similar/tangent, even working in tech, I sometimes mention to folks how completely out of touch and out of reach the real estate market in the PNW is. "How?", they ask, forgetting that a single person living alone pays the full share of rent, and then only has a single income to save towards real estate.

Nearly 100% of the people I know under age 35 who own their dwelling are couples, with both employed (and an overwhelming majority of those couples have at least one STEM income in that "portfolio").

I know a bunch of classical musicians, and while they study and work hard they all have steady gigs for one or more ensembles & orchestra's.

From the outside it feels somewhat more doable to be a pro , then a band or solo-artist, since there are quite a few orchestra's around that hire people on a stable basis. Spots are limited, but it's not super hard.

> Spots are limited, but it's not super hard.

This depends on the instrument and your location. If you play a popular instrument (say the violin) in a metro area with just one orchestra (some have zero!) then you ain't getting on that orchestra any way short of nepotism. If you live within commuting distance of multiple orchestras, there are more spots, but you still aren't going to be playing violin in the orchestra, and it's even possible that nepotism won't help you.

This is definitely not my area, but in other contexts I have heard of blind auditions as being a common practice in orchestras (i.e. people auditioning literally are hidden from view while they play and evaluations are then based only on hearing one play) which improved gender diversity in hiring, but not really racial diversity. How does nepotism work in this system?

How do you find out about the audition?

Also (though perhaps closer to a privilege issue than a nepotism issue):

How did you find the teacher who helped you get ready for the audition?

How did you "pay" for the practice time to prepare for the audition?

Many orchestras will hold open auditions. They'd post them on their website and probably a few regional music target outlets/websites.

Also networking, if you do gigs in the same region the orchestra is located you're bound to bump into a few of the members.

You can also just email the orchestra and ask when they hold auditions.

It still feels incredibly easy to cheat that system if you were motivated? Pre-share the candidates order list, chosen candidate will signal with an additional three note bar on the finale, etc.

Not all orchestras do blind auditions. Not all orchestras hold open auditions. You need both for nepotism to not give you a leg-up.

It very much is super hard

I studied and played classical into college during my engineering degree and have some insight into the realities of the profession - it's much harder than that and the pay for those stable gigs are oftentimes less than $300 / month. You're looking at one of the classic professional survivorship bias that I thought even the layman understood very well. Firstly, orchestras are in dire straights currently where programs are oftentimes supported by movie and pop media performances (see: National Symphony Orchestra playing Fantasia, Danny Elfman scores, and even freakin' Super Mario Brothers). This is a similar situation to ballet and theatre - legacy performance media I guess I'd call them. These orchestras don't pay much at all and most of the money classical musicians make are from lessons, typically the children of fairly affluent professionals, including from tech, finance, real estate, and other usual suspects of said caste. I saw grad students have to skip meals and beg and plead students to continue lessons to eat while I went off to recruiting events sponsored by tech companies where I ate food constantly and I never stopped feeling guilty even after inviting some friends to avoid pizza waste.

Some very lucky others that do well are from multiple generations of musicians that were essentially born, bred, and raised to be among the world's best and live and breathe music. There was no way I could ever compete with these kinds of folks and the hard life I saw so many talented people including professors that _are_ established after decades to live a very modest life made it clear to me that it wasn't something I should do for a living despite how much I love and respect it all. My role I feel is to support these folks now, so I go to shows, buy merch at the show, etc. and try not to take up space or attention too much and let people do what they do while trying to show appreciation for the work I was too chickenshit to ever do.

The arts and now entertainment fields are very much "tournament" style careers where given very limited public attention the winners take basically all and the remainder struggle quite a lot. It's nothing like professional fields like tech, accounting, medicine, law, or trades like construction, hospitality. In fact, any field that becomes more mass market-driven seems to become substantially more "tournament" style which has greatly impacted sex work - a top n% take an increasingly higher percentage away from an elastic but fundamentally highly dynamic demand.

The misattributed quote "find what you love and let it kill you" is the typical path of the career musician like most arts. I prefer to at least have some money to have more options to make it more fun on the way without resorting to the trap that is recreational substances.

I think you've captured and analogized it very well. Very good points, never tied it together this way myself, thanks!

One can think of music teachers as a zero interest rate phenomenon then by proxy, so maybe it wasn’t all bad (but most of it was).

Listen, can we all agree to stop calling any expenditure of money without a direct expectation of return a "zero interest rate phenomenon"?

"Starving artists" have existed for millenia. The arts patronage system began either or thousands of years ago, depending on who you ask. People have paid lots of money for gold jewelry basically since we figured out how to pull it out of the ground.

I saw someone call dog-walkers a ZIRP recently. No! It's just a luxury! There's a difference!

But dog walking businesses weren’t getting $1.35 billion dollar valuations before the interest rates were zero for so many years in an unprecedented way.

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/pet-sitting-marketplace-rover-...

Hit max- https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

....okay, sure, granted.

But the business model of "I walk other people's dogs when they don't have time to" is not a ZIRP. It's just not.

People might have hired more dogwalkers! Because ZIR might have created more affluent individuals! But that's a couple logical jumps from "dogwalking is a ZIRP"

Yeah, but that could just be SoftBank and its desire to light money on fire. I heard a podcast about a different fund who wanted to invest in a dog walking business, but SoftBank offered a huge multiple on what this group thought the company was worth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com