I think this article is reaching a bit. There are some interesting things about this drug dealer model though. Why do the bottom rungs agree to play this game? I think the dynamic manifests in a lot of highly aspirational industries. The money, prestige and such going to the slim top layer can act in lieu of benefits going directly to participants.
Many one-on-one sports are examples. Floyd Mayweather might make close to $500m in career prize winning. The "contenders" who fight him (apart from big names like Manny Pacquiao or Oscar De La Hoya) under him will earn ˜1% of that. Beneath them, "journeymen" (maybe the top 25 in a weight class) fighters often make something like that $3 an hours wage.
I suspect acting is often similar. Music, stand up comedy and arts in general. The possibility of attaining the prestige and earning of Tom Cruise keeps aspiring actors in gyms and auditions, trying to climb the steep ladder.
Apart from all that, there is definitely something in the zeitgeist about universities and academia. I think they are in for a tsunami of change sometime in the next generation. This is just one example. The weird entanglement of research and education. The trading on Prestige. The dynamism of competition under them (non academic education, bootcamps, online learning, etc.).
All the arts have brutal power law income distributions, with a handful of winners making $$$$$ while most people don't break even.
People who do well in the arts have a rare combination of charisma, marketing/networking skills, existing social contacts, persistence, location, luck, and talent - which often belongs at the end of the list, unfortunately.
Ironically, academia is one of the few places where you can work in the arts and do better than average. You can get real funding for arts research, especially if there's a technical angle.
Of course you don't usually have an audience - unless you count other academics - but not everyone loses sleep over that. And there's often a special policy niche for academic art. It's a kind of "Look at us as a country - we totally do serious difficult art" cultural brag.
It seems to be important to fill that niche. What it gets filled with isn't so important.
As a part time working musician, living in a university town, I know a lot of people on the lower rungs of both ladders. A common thread that I've noticed is that these people are compelled to pursue their fields, out of a devotion to their subject matter that would seem to frustrate a Homo Economicus analysis of their behavior.
The drug dealer analogy would be more fitting if dealers were paid in drugs. ;-)
Many one-on-one sports are examples. Floyd Mayweather might make close to $500m in career prize winning. The "contenders" who fight him (apart from big names like Manny Pacquiao or Oscar De La Hoya) under him will earn ˜1% of that. Beneath them, "journeymen" (maybe the top 25 in a weight class) fighters often make something like that $3 an hours wage.
I suspect acting is often similar. Music, stand up comedy and arts in general. The possibility of attaining the prestige and earning of Tom Cruise keeps aspiring actors in gyms and auditions, trying to climb the steep ladder.
Apart from all that, there is definitely something in the zeitgeist about universities and academia. I think they are in for a tsunami of change sometime in the next generation. This is just one example. The weird entanglement of research and education. The trading on Prestige. The dynamism of competition under them (non academic education, bootcamps, online learning, etc.).