So this is the problem with "starbucks coffee daily" argument - you are assuming people spend money logically/rationally, most people don't. That is why folks don't have any problem dropping $4 every single day at Starbucks (their coffee isn't even that good), but they won't spend $5 per month for something as important as email and depend on free email like GMail.

$84 is more than I pay monthly for Spotify, Netflix, the local newspaper, my broadband connection and occasional magazine buys combined. $1000 is more than I spend yearly on my biggest hobby - and that includes air travel and hotel fares. I have a really hard time coming up with any kind of content that'd be worth that much money.

I think the point is that Netflix and your local newspaper don't interact with you, personally in a one-on-one, honest, direct interaction. At an $84/mo subscription level, that's what you're buying.

Now this may be because the buyer is a true-believer or whatever, but equally likely because they're now able to drop a name around the dinner table, tell their friends that they're in direct dialogue with a 'name',... Status signalling, in a phrase. Tell me why some (rich!) people are willing to pay millions of dollars for a painting that looks like a couple of wet blobs on a half-plastered wall. Same forces at work, I suspect.

Not denying your point, but the wet blob painting is probably considered an investment that is expected to increase in value over time, unlike a Youtube video.

Ah, the starbucks coffee analogy.

Problem is, you can only drink so many fancy starbucks coffees per day. There are many more content creators around.

What will the customers do when everyone wants a starbucks coffee per day? Pay one? Pay no one?

Also don't forget that not everyone is living in the HN well paid tech ivory tower. Even in the US, there should be a lot of people who can't afford a starbucks coffee per day...