This is part of the problem for sure, but it's also how the revenue is split between back catalog vs new music.
In the physical media era, when you bought a record/CD you owned it forever and your marginal cost of listening to a song approached zero over time. Most dollars went to new music.
Now, it's close to a 75/25 split of dollars going to back catalog vs new music on streaming services.
If you're a new musician, you're not competing against new music, you're competing against the entire history of recorded music. You're fighting for a piece of a pie that the Beatles are still taking a chunk of.
And the labels are a part of the problem there, they made the deals with the streaming services that allows back catalog to dominate.
This is a problem with all of copyright, not just music.
You need to let things become public domain so people can make new. You need it to be unprofitable to just keep selling the exact same bits in perpetuity.
This redistribution of revenues from new to old has also taken place in games: ~90% of time in games on PC is spent in games older than a year, ~50% in games 5+ years old like Fortnite, CoD, Roblox etc. Around half of revenues are 'free to play' [1]
This is why making a new game is probably a terrible idea... but hey, world is casino!
Reverb (http://reverb.com) is disrupting the music instrument marketplace space and we're looking for a designer with a vision who can help us succeed. Our mission is to make the buying and selling of vintage and used instruments fun, affordable, easy, and reliable. Passion for music and music gear is a huge plus.
My understanding is that bubbles form when money is cheap and is chasing returns. If interest rates went up and/or the money supply was dampened and people had incentive to not chase returns in markets like tech, a bubble would be less likely to form.
That said, the psychology of bubbles is difficult to stop once it gains momentum.
The problem is that an entity like the fed doesn't have better information than the markets about appropriate asset pricing, so attempts to dampen bubbles might turn out to be premature or ill advised.
That's my $.02, I'm not a trained economist, just an armchair observer.
In a way, most economists are armchair observers. Economists don't have "practice" economies in which theories are testable -- we ARE the test dummies. It's unfortunate they run the same experiment over and over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
Economics PhD applicants score almost as high in the quantitative component of the GRE as their counterparts in mathematics and physics. That's because math and statistics are crucial to modern economics.
You missed my point. I'm arguing theorizing around statistical data is only half the battle to the scientific equation. The other part is putting those theories to the test and quantifying the results in meaningful way over time. Again and again. Without the again-and-again part, you only have theoretical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is not a "hard science". Involving data does not make a hard science. Applying heuristics to the data does not make it a science. A computerized model does not make something science. The weather-man uses science when developing a forecast. The forecast is not a hard science.
Take minimum wage for example. This is a theory with supporters in both camps - some for, some against. Well, how can we ever measure if a minimum wage is having a positive influence? How can we continue in support of a theory with no supporting evidence? Pile on 500 more concurrent theories, and you have a cluster-fuck only Krugman could defend.
Regarding the cheap money, isn't it better for markets to decide the interest rate rather than the Fed? Are there any examples in history where a country left the interest rate to be set by the market.
It's still the market that decides the interest rate. The Fed simply adjusts the money supply by buying or selling short term securities (historically) in order to create or soak up liquidity. The interest rate that results from these "Open Market transactions" are what you hear. The focus on short term securities means that in the long run the supply of money is still private-market driven.
There's an increased focus on affecting the medium-term or longer-term interest rates through the purchase of toxic assets like mortgage backed securities.
Not sure if that answers or clarifies anything though. I can say more if you're interested.
Let's say they get a budget of $80/hour for the project. Their goal is to sell it to you for as little as possible so they can take the difference. So they're always lying to you about the customer's budget, because in truth it's about them maximizing their profit.
I once had a recruiter offer me $25/hour. I laughed at them and told them to not call me back unless they could do $60, which at the time was my rate. They called back about 15 minutes later and said the client had increased the budget and they could do $60.
This is the way I've approached the issue for sometime, and the analogy I always use with clients to explain the additional cost is one of translation. Most browsers speak english, or some basic dialect of english. I can deal with those dialects. IE6 speaks Chinese. It costs more money to translate the site into Chinese. People seem to understand that analogy.
Well, they both have their strengths and weaknesses obviously. One thing I'd say in Android's favor is that if you make a really kick-ass game, you'll be a big fish in a small(er) pond. I think with the iPhone there's a higher risk/reward, but with Android you have a chance to make a really big splash.
In the physical media era, when you bought a record/CD you owned it forever and your marginal cost of listening to a song approached zero over time. Most dollars went to new music.
Now, it's close to a 75/25 split of dollars going to back catalog vs new music on streaming services.
If you're a new musician, you're not competing against new music, you're competing against the entire history of recorded music. You're fighting for a piece of a pie that the Beatles are still taking a chunk of.
And the labels are a part of the problem there, they made the deals with the streaming services that allows back catalog to dominate.