[…] Division of Labor, Productivity and Prosperity of Labor […]

It’s just a thought. I’m for division of labour because it is simply an extended version of the law of comparitive advantage. But to claim that division of labour will create an environment in which all those who pursue their talents will not suffer poverty is a bit far fetched, dont u think?

Sure! But if not all those people are not going to suffer poverty because there is a too much supply, then there is no other system which could get them out of poverty by allocating them to a better job.

I mean what’s the other options we have? A central Planner puts people for job? Everybody produce food for themselves, produce clothes for themselves, grow a cow for milk for themselves? Sing for themselves?
Are you suggesting that?

If 1000 people are trying to be an actor, and there are only 5 acting positions available, what do you think the rest of the struggling actors do in real life? They work in a restaurant as a waiter. Nobody really remains unemployed for long, people move in for other things, give their labor for other things.

Even if there is division of labour, wouldn’t certain people with certain talent suffer poverty & scarcity of opportunities? maybe because there are a lot many people aspiring in that industry (excess supply) or if that particular proffession does not provide much to others (less demand). for eg. singing.. even though singing is the best thing i can do in life, there might be a million others who are better at it than me.

Obviously Division of labour provides freedom for competition. So the best talent would be the most succesful singer, yet it is also true that in presence of division of labour, the opportunities extends too much.
Now as Indian market is opening up gradually, even with a littlemore than average singer can make a refreshed opening in music industry at very lower investments needed, obviously if you have any potential to be a profitabl singer, you will get investors, you won’t need tobe xtra rih or exeptionally talented, because Kishor Kumar(oh sorry he died) or anyone of his potential won’t be coming to compete with you. His competition would be on higher level, you may compete on local, or regional levels, you may issue your private musical album, the consumers are deciders, if your album won’t make profits,you won’t be wasting any of your potential further.
Just because you think your voice is good doesn’t make it profitable too, and as said earlier, anyone may enjoy singing, but he won’t make singing as profession if he is not getting the desired materialistic profits. The profit will indicate whether your singing potential is enough to be a professional singer for you or not.

During 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s when the entertainment industry was strictly governed by censorboards and entertainment ministry and investment was controlled, there were not as many singers nor as many opportunities as there are right now, furthermore, the best singers of those days were not earning that much profits which today even the average singers can easily make.

Even if there is division of labour, wouldn’t certain people with certain talent suffer poverty & scarcity of opportunities? maybe because there are a lot many people aspiring in that industry (excess supply) or if that particular proffession does not provide much to others (less demand). for eg. singing.. even though singing is the best thing i can do in life, there might be a million others who are better at it than me.

It’s just a thought. I’m for division of labour because it is simply an extended version of the law of comparitive advantage. But to claim that division of labour will create an environment in which all those who pursue their talents will not suffer poverty is a bit far fetched, dont u think?