Musician Ryan Nealon recently posted a plea for help on Instagram. His beloved cat, Rudy, had to be hospitalized for a few days, and Ryan couldn't afford the bills on his own.

Ryan is a touring musician who has amassed tens of millions of streams and has hundreds of thousands of followers. As someone who has worked in music myself, I know how extraordinarily hard that is to accomplish. The amount of dedication and hard work that takes, on top of the constant stress that comes with freelancing, is almost unfathomable. Forget about work/life balance. Your work is your life.

An independent musician such as Ryan in 2019 made an average of $12,860 a year from music-related income, and even musicians signed to labels only earned an average of $23,913. Eight in ten musicians, both label and independent, said that they didn't earn enough from music to not worry about their financial situation. More recent data is difficult to find, but one can infer that with the stagnation, and in some cases, decrease, of streaming royalties, as well as the rising cost of living, income is likely similar and financial instability has likely increased.

If you expand this to include other artists (designers, actors, dancers, photographers, editors, writers, etc.), that average income only rises to about $55,000 per year. That's less than the living wage in some states, and below the salary needed to live comfortably in every state. In California, for example, where many artists are based, the salary needed for a single adult to live comfortably is a whopping $119,475. The picture is quite clear. Artists are laughably underpaid for the work they do.

But why?

One reason is because they can be. Corporations take advantage of the passion artists have for their craft. Their heart is ingrained in their work. Most artists I know will do unpaid work. Most will accept payment in "experience." I've done it myself. What's the incentive for a company to pay somebody for their work when the next person will do it for free?

However, in other occupations, such as medicine or law, while there may be those who would be willing to practice for free out of a love for their craft, nobody would expect them to. Those who work pro bono are not asked to do so, they choose to do so themselves. One may argue that they got their "experience" in college, but in the arts, even those with degrees are treated the same as those without.

Why do the arts operate with a different incentive structure?

That brings up a core issue – our societal perception of art as a "fun" job, a frivolous one, a hobby, and therefore less deserving of compensation.

For most, arts are an afterschool activity in adolescence. Their experience either ends there or becomes an after-work hobby. Because most people's experience creating art is in the context of a fun, relaxing activity, they may see an artist and think they're not a hard worker. In our society, if you're not working hard, you haven't earned financial stability.

Corporations in the arts thrive on this perception. That's why you can get paid in "experience" or "college credit" with little to no pushback. For example, I took an internship at a film development company for "college credit" - meaning I paid $4,800 to work for free. I was a development intern, but in reality, I was treated as a glorified personal assistant, picking up lunch for executives and cleaning out dusty closets – with just enough script coverage on the side to provide a paper trail of "education." That was the industry "experience" I was getting paid with.

The whole time, I was sold on "You're making valuable connections that will help you later on." I remember wanting to say, "Why can't there be both? Why can't I make these connections while being paid for the work I'm doing for you currently?" I couldn't ask those questions though, because if I pushed back, there was someone else who would've happily picked up those Sweetgreen salads in my place.

In another disturbing example, "pay-to-play" shows have consumed live music opportunities for independent artists, especially in big cities like Los Angeles and New York City. This is how it works: A venue works with a promoter to book acts and that promoter will make the acts pay them in advance for a minimum amount of tickets they need to sell. The number of tickets is typically unreasonable for the size of the venue and amount of acts in the show, but if that act doesn’t sell the minimum amount of tickets, they don’t make a dollar on any of them. The promoter and venue pocket every dollar that artist brought in that night, including drink sales, cover charges, and a cut of the artist’s merch, while the artist — who provided their service to that venue — leaves at a loss.

In my experience as a musician in Los Angeles, I can tell you that it is rare to find a paid live gig. Every musician I know has paid to play at least one show, if not all their shows. Those famous Sunset Strip venues you hear about (The Roxy, The Whiskey, The Viper Room)? Yeah, those have all operated on the pay-to-play model for decades. It is deeply entrenched in the culture.