
No One Makes a Living on Patreon - untangle
https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon
======
maxharris
_In this small network designed to save struggling creatives, the money has
still concentrated at the top._

Why on earth would anyone expect otherwise?

Let's take, for example, the explicit attempt to organize society so that its
members are more equal. This ought to be easy to do because we have an entire
century of communism and socialism to draw conclusions from.

In _every_ instance where these ideas have been put into practice, the elite
lives much better than the average subject. (This is not even a controversial
point.)

Contrary to what most people think, the problem isn't that human nature is at
fault. That humans are inherently bad, and are failing to live up to a noble
ideal.

The real problem is the concept of _equality_ itself, which includes two
separate but opposite ideas.

The idea of legal equality - where every person ideally gets a fair shake
through the courts - is excellent. A bedrock of a fair, just and prosperous
civilization. Here, the ideal is a system that punishes only those that
_choose_ to violate specific, well-defined rights of other people, leaving
everyone else free to go about their lives.

But this other idea of equality - where every person gets just as much money
as everyone else does, no matter what _choices_ they make, no matter what they
prefer - is an absolute disaster. A century of history shows that this
supposed ideal _itself_ leads to mass suffering and death, precisely because
people weren't free to think and act in ways needed to sustain their lives.

The underlying fact is that we are not all the same in every sense or
capacity. Some of us are better at some things than others. Some of us decide
to make better choices, or to delay instant gratification for long-term
benefits. We ought to stop glossing over these differences and instead embrace
them. (I say this not because my goal is to stomp on or take advantage of
anyone - in fact, my goal is precisely the opposite.)

If no one wants to pay you for what you make, try to figure out why. Be
prepared for an answer you do not want to hear. Stop thinking that your life
is driven by fate or forces outside of your control (it only is if you _think_
it is.) Be your own worst critic. And take even this paragraph with a grain of
salt - success isn't ever guaranteed by blindly following a static recipe. Not
everyone will choose to think this way, but maybe you will?

~~~
eesmith
I think you've inverted the intent of that point. You ask "Why on earth would
anyone expect otherwise?" This expectation appears to be the core of Patreon's
marketing.

"Patreon had all these great selling points and stats. I could get “meaningful
revenue” from my fans, and finally find the “creative freedom” I’d heard so
much about. Patreon’s about page said creator’s incomes “doubled annually.”
Their blog has story after story after story of their users making thousands a
month. Of course I was grateful for everyone who contributed to mine, but none
of the site’s promises were coming true." ... "It’s easy to feel like the
failure of my Patreon is entirely on me. It’s an anxiety most artists feel
acutely: Am I actually any good? This paranoia is bolstered by the presence of
wildly successful creators on the site, and there is a nascent market for
Patreon advice in the way that Kickstarter birthed an industry of professional
crowdfunding consultants."

Regarding the rest of your comment, you mentioned the goal was "so that its
members are more equal".

As an example of how that might work in Patreon, consider the recent change in
fee payment, which ended up taking a bigger cut of small donations while
reducing the cut on big donations. Since most people have only small donors,
and only the elites have significant numbers of big donors, this
disproportionately affects those making less money from Patreon.

While if they had reduced the cut from small donations and increased that from
large donations, then the result would have lead to more equals (meaning, less
dissimilar) incomes.

It would still mean that "the elite lives much better than the average
subject. (This is not even a controversial point.)"

As you say, "we have an entire century of communism and socialism to draw
conclusions from." That experience (which is not limited to just communism and
socialism) includes a progressive tax rate, where those elites pay more
because they are more able to pay.

Under the analogy you are using, Patreon is changing their tax system to be
more regressive. Have you drawn the conclusion that more regressive taxes are
better for a country?

