I watch quite a lot of youtube. People who regularly post on themselves, general stuff, memes and even post on others who post on these things. Owning a youtube channel is a relatively easy way to make money. It's not a lot of money but it can be a living nevertheless. Some of these people are very smart though, and very hardworking. But the pay they get is not much. Among the millions of youtube channel owners, may be a few hundred can afford to make a living out of it. And even the top earners on youtube worldwide only get around 100-200 thousand dollars a year which is a lot, but nothing compared to average performers with similar intellect in other fields. (It is obvious that say, an investment banker would be doing a lot more work than a youtuber and thus earning his pay, but there are cases where a youtuber such as Olga Kay may be working a lot harder and putting in way more time than an i-banker, only to get paid way less.)There are non-monteray benefits though of being a youtuber- the fame and the comfortable and casual nature of the job as well as being able to talk/ make videos about your passion. This makes people do youtubing for these non-monetary benefits partly and thus would compromise a bit on the pay (received from google), thus creating a market where the equilibrium monetary benefits are mediocre.
Music is something I have a lot of passion for, but it doesn't generate money in India. In fact for a large majority of talented musicians, the joy of playing music, the coolness factor, and the associated fame are sufficient. Most bands in Kerala have rich members who don't really need the money. This has ensured that even the people who deserve money don't get it, since there are some who don't ask for it. Playing music or talking about what you like on youtube are very natural things for humans to do- but sitting at a desk and doing paperwork isn't. I doubt if many people would actually be passionate about a desk job (although some might claim the same) but part of the reason why they pay more is because it's plain boring. Going to outer space, being a soldier and fighting a war, being a contrarian value investor and heck- even going away from home and living in a far away city in a small rented house will all pay more (though the last one is not directly related to the others and has more to do with your risk-taking abilities in life, and the abilities to socialise quickly/ live without much social life in a different city). The same way non-monetary benefits reduce the pay for certain jobs which involve doing innately human things, jobs which involve inhuman tasks to be carried out, compensate by paying higher. Passion, which can be measured as the joy when you do something you like, can guide your career path. But in a similar way, if you suffer less pain than others while doing something that no one wants to do, it's in effect the same thing. It's something along the lines of maximising returns/ minimising losses - both of which require similar approaches and end results. For someone who is risk-averse, it can be a wise choice to go for a job which gives him less pain than others, as compared to going for his passion- since you can always misjudge your true passion.
Music is something I have a lot of passion for, but it doesn't generate money in India. In fact for a large majority of talented musicians, the joy of playing music, the coolness factor, and the associated fame are sufficient. Most bands in Kerala have rich members who don't really need the money. This has ensured that even the people who deserve money don't get it, since there are some who don't ask for it. Playing music or talking about what you like on youtube are very natural things for humans to do- but sitting at a desk and doing paperwork isn't. I doubt if many people would actually be passionate about a desk job (although some might claim the same) but part of the reason why they pay more is because it's plain boring. Going to outer space, being a soldier and fighting a war, being a contrarian value investor and heck- even going away from home and living in a far away city in a small rented house will all pay more (though the last one is not directly related to the others and has more to do with your risk-taking abilities in life, and the abilities to socialise quickly/ live without much social life in a different city). The same way non-monetary benefits reduce the pay for certain jobs which involve doing innately human things, jobs which involve inhuman tasks to be carried out, compensate by paying higher. Passion, which can be measured as the joy when you do something you like, can guide your career path. But in a similar way, if you suffer less pain than others while doing something that no one wants to do, it's in effect the same thing. It's something along the lines of maximising returns/ minimising losses - both of which require similar approaches and end results. For someone who is risk-averse, it can be a wise choice to go for a job which gives him less pain than others, as compared to going for his passion- since you can always misjudge your true passion.
No comments:
Post a Comment