Jay's $6 for bottled water comment makes sense within the context that he hails from New York City, where you can be in a studio apartment and pay $3000 a month for rent, depending on which borough you live in. Go anywhere in Manhattan, and you can end up paying $6 for water easy.
That being said, the false equivalence surprises me, and the contempt surprises me even more. The whole argument that people are willing to pay a lot for one thing, so they are also willing to pay a lot for another thing, falls flat on its face, considering water is essentially a priceless resource. Meaning everything in that bottle of water except the bottle itself, is of high value. Music, however, is a commodity, no matter how much money the music actually costs to be made. The water comparison would've made more sense if he said it back in the 90's, where people were buying 10+ song albums off the hype of 2 singles, like buying a full meal when you only wanted the appetizers.
And the cheek of the idea that people who stream music would be simple-minded enough to equate water with music, and would pay anything to have it because "MUSIC", is an insult to their fans. As Royalan essentially explained, time is money, so time ain't free. Those streamers who aren't paying with subscriptions are paying with the time spent listening to unskippable ads in between their favorite songs. So, equating those people to essentially petty thieves who are too dumb to realize that music and water don't even come close to the same value comes as a slap in the face.
