• TranscendentalEmpire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think the main difference is she is mostly a billionaire via her own productivity. Everyone else on the list got there because they are capitalizing on other peoples labour, doing little to no actual work themselves.

    She still reaps the benefit of other people’s work, but she is essentially still the product of her own labour.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ah but she is capitalizing on other’s labor, she 100% has employees in at least some fashion, be they housekeepers, pilots, tour bus drivers, shirt makers (probably literal sweat shops contracted out tbh), vinyl pressing plants, CD pressers, printers for the art for those, probably a roady or two to hump equipment of some sort, she is employing some people. Some of those are likely third parties who are in turn exploited by their boss capitalizing on their labor, making her a degree of separation from the exploitation in that case but still she benefits and profits directly off of their exploitation.

    • Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No, not through her own productivity. At the start of her career, she had numerous song writers who were arguably exploited in that they are not getting a cut of her earnings. Even now, she doesn’t play every instrument on a track. She has a whole team of producers. In concerts, she plays with a band. None of those people are making a fraction of the ludicrous money she’s making for “her own product”.

      But beyond that, like the other commentator said, she has tons of staff of whom are exploited at a paycheck.

      And beyond that, all of the merchandise she puts out employs many, many different exploited individuals to make.