I guess I object to defining “creator” as specifically “online content creator”. Maybe there was some golden age in the past, but I think that was always aspirational and there was always a nearly power-law distribution of success. Making a living from online content was always a struggle except for the winners that made it look easy.

Super piece. Well worth reading. I keep wondering if there's some structural economic fundamental that disperses money the way it does. Is the dispersion purely a consequence of the attention economy? Probably, but I'm guessing. Engagement and outrage always sell, but so does visibility, and how one becomes visible. I guess that's come down to advertising, brand, and the platform algorithms that present the content and create or amplify the brand. I get why OC finds it tiring and depressing.

I have no proof of this but I suspect that when rent is cheap enough the middle and lower classes can work a single job or a part time job with roommates, they will have enough time pursue their artistic passions, you get great art and technology breakthroughs.

Look at Seattle in the 90's, NYC, early San Fran, etc., the before real estate prices skyrocketed or 17th and 18th century enlightenment post-plague, when massive amounts of the rich died and the wealth became more evenly distributed.

I feel like real estate prices, inequality, and inflation truly squander the intellectual wealth of the poor and middle classes and it hurts the human race as a whole.

I think there is a flaw in thinking that "Creators" have some intrinsic value. The reason the middle gets pushed out is correct in this article but it is missing an important point: there are too many creators.

That is why the top gets heavier and the bottom spreads out.