Are youtubers usually trust fund babies?
It's a lot easier to maintain a youtube channel if it doesn't have to be profitable.
Would be super amusing. I'm fairly sure Youtube itself still isn't profitable. It's subsidized somehow. If the videographers are themselves subsidized as well...
This is of course bad sociology. While transferring value from rich to poor isn't bad per se, it's concentrating in useless consumers and locking out the lower-end producers. Put politely, the rich are spending their money for the sake of killing time.
P.S. Turns out giving stuff away for free is communist. Who knew. It is unfortunate that teaching must be free, though it must be free precisely because other factors provide discipline.