Quote:
Originally Posted by Alarin  The sheer volume of contributers lowers the social value of the contribution. This is what makes me think that some fields have a "glass ceiling" of income that can be earned simply because of the high volume of contributers in that field?? |
That's a reflection of supply and demand,
Alarin. The more abundant the resource, the less social value it has, lest it is addictive or has some extra hook(read:tobacco). The solution to this problem is niche-ing, finding an under-served area of said field.
This doesn't have to be limited to illustrating via paint on glass at retail locations (a niche), but can also mean extremely high quality graphic art (another niche). You've got to outsmart and outwork your competition to succeed, and this is doubly important in a thoroughly- or over-served field.
On another note, In my opinion, the scarcity/mooching mindset is what many unions end up as, but are not built upon. Founders and leaders of unions are usually deeply rooted in abundance, but the general member seems to be on the opposite pole of the conscious earning spectrum. For example, I know a tradesman who only works as often as he must in terms of the union he is in, as well as a myriad of teachers who do the same, 'because they can.' They are mooching off of taxpayer/consumer value, would you agree?