Donald Satz:

>With the dust starting to settle on this thread, there are two primary
>divergent views which have been expressed.  One is that professionals
>in the music field should be compensated based on the principle of merit
>(you get what you deserve).  The other view is that the market, although
>imperfect, allocates incomes better than any other methodology....
>What it comes down to is whether you prefer to see incomes based on
>subjective criteria or on the more objective market basis.  I have argued
>strongly for the market approach...

Since it is hard to know what a person deserves, in all fairness, it is
rather too bad no one argued "from each according to ability, to each
according to need." But since nobody does argue that principle, lets just
take another glance at the market for conductors.

What orchestras seem to do is bid competitively for the conductors they
want, to a degree that is beyond their means.  Performing arts groups
are always saying that ticket sales cover only half their costs, and
that therefore subscribers, nonsubscribing individuals, foundations,
corporations, etc.  should give them the difference.  A very significant
part of that "difference" has to be the music director's salary.  Beyond
any question of fairness, need or merit are two other questions I have:
(1) is it rational behavior on the part of arts organizations to spend so
much beyond their means? and (2) to respond to Don's market recommendation,
is this market economics at all? That is, if you have subsidies (private
donations are subsidies just as much as government grants) are you dealing
with the market or with something else? I think its something else, though
I don't have a name for it.

Jim Tobin