Roan spoke out against unfair labor practices within the music industry during her acceptance speech, saying:

“I told myself that if I ever won a Grammy and got to stand up here before the most powerful people in music, I would demand that labels in the industry profiting millions of dollars off of artists would offer a livable wage and health care, especially to developing artists. I got signed so young—I got signed as a minor. When I got dropped, I had zero job experience under my belt, and like most people, I had… quite a difficult time finding a job in the pandemic and [could not] afford insurance. It was devastating to feel so committed to my art and feel so betrayed by the system and dehumanized. If my label had prioritized it, I could have been provided care for a company I was giving everything to. Record labels need to treat their artists as valuable employees with a livable wage and health insurance and protection.”

  • @DkarmaEnglish
    -14•7 hours ago

    No, there is not.

    • @SelfHigh5English
      2•6 hours ago

      Chiming in to agree with you since for some reason you’re getting downvoted… no ethical billionaires. None.

      I love Taylor Swift. A billionaire. She certainly gives a LOT back to others, the community ant large, etc. In many ways, I really believe we made the right person famous.

      But there’s no justification for her to be a billionaire, she and all billionaires should be trying every day to lower their bottom line, not selling multiple copies of the same vinyl in different colors, as a small for instance.

      • Carighan MaconarEnglish
        4•5 hours ago

        What about if they can’t give their billions away?

        Like, consider Swift. She has an extravagant lifestyle, but it’s clearly not a billionaire lifestyle. She doesn’t own multiple islands, isn’t blowing up rockets, stuff like that. She’s worth billions, but that also means she could not give that wealth away even if she wants to.

        It’s a big problem in our modern society that we attribute a perceived, entirely imaginative, form of worth to someone in a monetary number. Being “worth” something isn’t “having” that wealth. In particular for artists, where the worth is usually to whoever is making money from selling your work (i.e.: the labels).

        • @[email protected]English
          6•5 hours ago

          I disagree that she cannot give her wealth away.

          Many wealthy hold stock and take loans to pay their lifestyle. They can similarly take loans to fund charities.

          Taylor Swift could fund charities. She could highlight charities to support. (She may already, I don’t know her.)

          Edit: I do not believe her “worth” as a billionaire includes potential, but rather what she currently owns.

        • @SelfHigh5English
          3•5 hours ago

          There is an amount of her assets and such that she couldn’t and shouldn’t be expected to give away. But she gave $1M to food pantries in each of the cities she toured the last 2 years and also gave millions in bonuses. And she probably didn’t feel any poorer. But I think because her dad was in finance and she started so young, many good business decisions were made so that her wealth just compounds no matter what she does.

          It should be up to her and her team to allocate which charities and such she gives, sure.

          But she’s an American billionaire, and is by design, not taxed as much as she should be, and that is the crux of the entire issue.

          • Carighan MaconarEnglish
            1•5 hours ago

            But she’s an American billionaire, and is by design, not taxed as much as she should be, and that is the crux of the entire issue.

            Yeah that is true of course. #TaxTheRich applies of course.

    • @SupraMarioEnglish
      3•7 hours ago

      Lol, so everyone who is wealthy, is just a pile of shit then yea?

      • @[email protected]English
        2•4 hours ago

        One of the things about capitalism is it obscures labour relationships. So an individual person can be a total peach, but because of how our present economic system works, they benefit and perpetuate exploitation of people like wage-labourers, who don’t own capital themselves.

        This is kind of the sentiment behind the phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism,” but of course it applies even moreso to the very very wealthy. They make bigger ripples.

        • @SupraMarioEnglish
          1•1 hour ago

          You should put down that phone and anything else that you need for survival then. As the mining labor to make most of the shit you use, is done from the poor. To someone in Africa, you’re an extremely wealthy person. To some in china, same thing.

          Wealth doesn’t magically make someone a shitty person.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•56 minutes ago

            Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.

            I don’t intend to be shitty, and if I met these workers I would be very kind and polite to them.

            But because of our system, and my relative wealth, my actions are causing them strife. I’m getting further ahead because I benefit from their exploitation.

            I didn’t plan that, nor do I want it. I may not be shitty but I’m part of a shitty system.

            Do that make sense? I only ask because you brought up poor workers like it might be a rebuttal, no offense. Maybe I’m misreading.