Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
In what world does investing roughly 3x the median yearly income in the US into your child's potential music career not count as "quite rich"?
It is difficult to comprehend how staggering wealth inequality is. Minimum wage earners have more in common with her parents, then her parents did with the truly wealthy. I have always liked Pen's parade (which is about income rather than wealth), but there are other aids. One pixel wealth might work in this context because they provide a marker for median income in the visualization.
Okay, and? Sorry if I have a bit of a snarky tone throughout this comment, but it frankly annoys me when people bring up stuff like this. Yes, richer people exist, and mathematically the Swift family net worth (pre-Taylor's career) was surely closer to a minimum wage family than to Jeff Bezos. I don't expect anyone would suggest Mr. and Ms. Swift to be first at the guillotine if the revolution comes. I don't even begrudge them using their wealth to help their daughter's career. I bet most would do the same if they had the resources. But...
Being able to invest anything, let alone 120,000$ into something as unsure as a pop music career, is very foreign to me, a minimum wage earner. From my perspective, the Swift family had a heck of a lot more in common with the elite than with my peers. Sure, they didn't have "buy-private-islands-and-tickets-to-space-Musk-Bezos" type money, but they clearly had enough money to never need or even want anything.
Comparing this with minimum wage earners is pretty shortsighted, even if mathematically their finances are closer to minimum wage earners than to the 0.0000001% of ultra wealthy. The leap from "closer in net worth mathematically" to minimum wage earners than the ultra wealth to "have more in common" with minimum wage earners than the ultra wealthy is just plain wrong. The math doesn't represent the reality of these different financial situations. In reality, their lives were much closer to that of the elite than to the poor fucker buying their groceries in quarters at the Dollar Store.
The existence of people who have so much wealth the human mind can't even conceive of it doesn't negate the wealth the Swift family clearly had, and it certainly doesn't mean their economic and social lives are closer to that of minimum wage earners than to the ultra wealthy.
You're not wrong, but that doesn't make you entirely right either. The "crabs in a bucket" mentality comes from attacking people who are doing slightly better than you. It might seem like they significant wealth, but they can still be bankrupted by a chronic medical diagnosis or any other of a million things. I choose to focus on the real issue - the 0.0001% and not people making 4 or 5 times the median income.
That's where my mind went too
You have a point that there's a huge difference in the life of a minimum wage family and a family able to invest 6 figures. Context matters though and I think the point was that they didn't have an overwhelming amount that can force success; we're talking about a financial-secure and supported start that enables pursuit of things that are unlikely to pan out. Still no small luxury, by any means.
FWIW 0.1% is already 38 million dollars (net worth, US, 2012 data).
E: Speaking of context, you were specifically talking about commonality between the, idk, bottom 1-10%, top 1-10%, and (whatever is ultra-wealthy). So my point may be the one made out-of-context.
The 120k went into the label, he pumped another million into her directly just for the first album.
btw I tried to find a trustfull source for the claim that it was only 120k. There are different numbers thrown around, while the 120k is the lowest. The source of that number is Wikipedia and the 2 linked "resources" for that don't mention it. One of the 2 resources is even an article that is not about Tailor Swift but rather one about some Tobey Keith instead.
I don't think it was disclosed. I couldn't find any proof about the amount.
She was 14 when "signing" the record label contract.
This is basically the moment where they used that load of money.And everyone who is thinking that she is a self-made anything is blind by choice.
Parents throwing Kids at that age into international careers make me at least sceptical about their motivation. That it seems to have worked out this time, doesn't change that at all.
The current world in which the median yearly income is basically poverty