Smartass? We going ad hominem now? I’m sorry, you want to just come out and say absurd things and never be challenged? Don’t want your feelings hurt or something? Sucks for you I guess.

Okay, I’ll bite. First thing first: It is absolutely hilarious to me that, when pressed to defend your position, you turn to a robot to do your work for you. Is this the leisurely future automation has promised us?

From your link:

Can you tell me if, in the USA, the average artist earns more per year than the average craftsmen (plumber, electrician, carpenter, locksmith, etc.)?

This is not what I was asking you to back up. You said artists struggle to survive, not that they make more than tradespeople. You thought you could get away with that, didn’t ya? Unfortunately for you my ass is smart.

Here are a few passages from your favorite study buddy:

Remember, median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount, and half earned less. It’s often considered a better representation of the “typical” wage than the mean (average), especially in fields with very high earners that can skew the average upwards.

And

Important Note: The OOH page itself notes, “Because fine artists often work on commission or are self-employed, their earnings may be inconsistent.” This median figure can be influenced by high earners and doesn’t fully capture the income precarity many fine artists face. Many earn significantly less or rely on other income sources.

I agree with the first claim about median wage, but the robot seems to contradict itself in the second point. A minority of extremely high earners, like Hollywood superstars, shouldn’t skew the median. If they got paid closer to but still above the median then nothing would change. They’d still be in the upper half. Median is fun that way.

Contradictions like this are something to be aware of. That, and that chatbots are prone to hallucinations, make results like this a bit dubious. I don’t know how bad Gemini is these days, nor am I going to look it up right now, but this is just a problem to be aware of. It is good that it provided sources though.

Onto the “struggling to survive” bit. That’s a statement that is open to interpretation. For this argument I will first assume that means they are making less than a livable wage. Here’s the NASDAQ researching livable wages. Living wages seem to be between $61,842 and $148,683.

Gemini states the median annual wages for various trades are between $59,620 and $61,550. Various artist careers have median annual wages between $44,030 and $61,280. Looks like everyone is struggling to survive. This just shows that the US is seemingly an overpriced hellhole, and I am glad I do not live there.

The NASDAQ does, however, have a generous definition of living wage:

“Living wage” is defined as the income required to cover 50% of necessities, 30% discretionary/luxury spending and 20% for savings.

I personally interpret “surviving” as covering your living expenses , and maybe having a bit left over for leisure activities like movies and such. If I cut “Living wage” down to mean 80% for necessities and 20% for whatever else then I get a living wage between $38,661 and $92,926. That’s only my interpretation though. Feel free to do your own.

My math was this:

Living wage = (NASDAQ ÷ 2) ÷ 0.8 = NASDAQ ÷ 1.6

My reasoning is that the NASDAQ wage is 50% essentials, so if you cut it in half you get only the essentials. Then, I want the essentials to take up 80% of the total wage, so I divide it by 80%. Boom: a “Barely Living” wage.

So, in conclusion, it looks like artists do not “struggle to survive”. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.