8 ms·

> Everyone's a winner. Except perhaps those die-hard fans who do not have the extra money available to see what may be a once-in-a-lifetime show. Perhaps a mo

> Everyone's a winner. Except perhaps those die-hard fans who do not have the extra money available to see what may be a once-in-a-lifetime show. Perhaps a more correct ending would be "Everyone who has enough disposable income is a winner."

OJFord 10y ago
If they're too cheap, then it would be everyone with enough disposable time to sit in queue and grab them before they sell out.
- tomtoise 10y ago
  This is another reason scalpers are bad. Botting the process gives an edge in both speed and tenacity over legitimate fans sitting in the queue. Ticket allotment limits are only affecting legitimate users, as those scalpers who use bots can get around this with multiple sessions.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money, so people tend to find this sort of thing to be more fair.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money How so?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      If you compare the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile of "wealth," when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 for Americans (the 10th percentile male lives about 55 years, female 62 years; the 90th percentile is 93/96). If you look at income, the ratio between 90th and 10th percentile is over 10. If you look at net worth, the ratio is actually negative, because the 10th percentile has less than zero net worth. If you expand it out to the 100th percentile then the difference is even more stark. The 100th percentile income is many orders of magnitude higher than the 10th percentile, while the 100th percentile time is less than 3x higher than the 10th percentile.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 If I employ someone, their time was mine; If it wasn't, they could use it to stand in line for tickets. This is a different thing from 'mortality', although I assume the wealthy have both better medical care, and quality of life beyond average male/female lifespans.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Even if you restrict it to free time, the disparity isn't that great. If time were distributed like money, then the average person would have only a few seconds of free time per day.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Only because personal free time is capped. But if you include work-hours, there is a discrepancy. What do you mean by "the average person"? The median wrt wage? Because the average wage will be the same regardless of distribution.
        mikeash 10y ago
        What do you mean, if you include work hours? I can't think of any way to analyze a person's time which results in the many-orders-of-magnitude inequalities we see with money. For "the average person," pick any reasonable meaning you like. I think they'll all work about the same in this context. The person who makes the most money makes orders of magnitude more than the average. The person who has the most free time has, at most, 168 hours of free time per week. If the inequality there were similar, than the average person's free time would be measured in seconds.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > What do you mean, if you include work hours If I employ someone to do something, they are acting on my behalf, as proxy. These lose the free time I pay them for, and I gain it. Hence an individual that employs people maybe have more than 24 hours a day; e.g. If I pay someone to wait in line for an hour (for a ticket), so I don't have to, then I just bought an hour of free time. > I think they'll all work about the same in this context It sounds like you're just guessing then. I tried working it out, but it depends on what you are trying to measure.
jstanley 10y ago
Sure, but some fan wasn't going to make it either way. Why should the fan who is willing to pay more money have to miss out, in favour of a fan who is paying less money?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the people providing those things.
  - jstanley 10y ago
    It's not about deserving in any sort of moral sense. If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? He obviously is willing to give you more, so give it to him. That's fair. That's life. EDIT: And if you sell it to me for $1000, don't be surprised if I turn around and sell it to the $2000 guy. He wants it more than I do, and he's going to get it one way or another.
    - darpa_escapee 10y ago
      Would your explanation still be as just-so if I chose to sell the item for <=$1000 to you because you are a friend or family?
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      There are numerous reasons why I could and would choose to go with the first person in spite of a lower offer.
    - ctrl-j 10y ago
      But that's not the situation at hand. It's three people offering me $1000 for something, I give it to you because you're the first person. Then, you turn around and say "hey, I'm selling this for $2000 because I never wanted it in the first place!" The two other people who were waiting can't afford it. Some other guy comes along later who can afford it and pays up. It's not fair, it's one of the nasty grimy sides of capitalism. Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> Except perhaps those die-hard fans who do not have the extra money available to see what may be a once-in-a-lifetime show. The problem with this logic is that you assume since the "die-hard" fan does not have the money, he will simply give up and be shut out of being able to go. As someone who was, and still is a huge music fan, I always plan the gigs I want to go see around when I was getting paid and my budget. I was able to balance seeing fairly unknown bands in small venues before they got big (once saw Korn and Marilyn Manson open for Danzig. Or HedPE, System of a Down and Static-X open for Fear Factory) with the larger, more expensive shows like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park, or RUSH. Most of my friends who are also rabid fans will know when a band is coming and plan accordingly. The whole idea that "die-hard" fans are being shut out is nonsense. We plan, we plot, and we scheme to see the bands we want to. I even took a gig at a CD shop so I could go see bands for free. I didn't care how much I was getting paid because the perks of seeing a national act for free with two of my friends was payment enough. To me a "die-hard" fan will find a way regardless. I would categorize more fair weather fans with the attitude you're conveying. If they get a ticket to a "must see" show, then cool, if not, well, it's not a huge deal to them.

OJFord 10y ago

If they're too cheap, then it would be everyone with enough disposable time to sit in queue and grab them before they sell out.

tomtoise 10y ago
This is another reason scalpers are bad. Botting the process gives an edge in both speed and tenacity over legitimate fans sitting in the queue. Ticket allotment limits are only affecting legitimate users, as those scalpers who use bots can get around this with multiple sessions.
mikeash 10y ago
Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money, so people tend to find this sort of thing to be more fair.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money How so?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    If you compare the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile of "wealth," when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 for Americans (the 10th percentile male lives about 55 years, female 62 years; the 90th percentile is 93/96). If you look at income, the ratio between 90th and 10th percentile is over 10. If you look at net worth, the ratio is actually negative, because the 10th percentile has less than zero net worth. If you expand it out to the 100th percentile then the difference is even more stark. The 100th percentile income is many orders of magnitude higher than the 10th percentile, while the 100th percentile time is less than 3x higher than the 10th percentile.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 If I employ someone, their time was mine; If it wasn't, they could use it to stand in line for tickets. This is a different thing from 'mortality', although I assume the wealthy have both better medical care, and quality of life beyond average male/female lifespans.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Even if you restrict it to free time, the disparity isn't that great. If time were distributed like money, then the average person would have only a few seconds of free time per day.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Only because personal free time is capped. But if you include work-hours, there is a discrepancy. What do you mean by "the average person"? The median wrt wage? Because the average wage will be the same regardless of distribution.
        mikeash 10y ago
        What do you mean, if you include work hours? I can't think of any way to analyze a person's time which results in the many-orders-of-magnitude inequalities we see with money. For "the average person," pick any reasonable meaning you like. I think they'll all work about the same in this context. The person who makes the most money makes orders of magnitude more than the average. The person who has the most free time has, at most, 168 hours of free time per week. If the inequality there were similar, than the average person's free time would be measured in seconds.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > What do you mean, if you include work hours If I employ someone to do something, they are acting on my behalf, as proxy. These lose the free time I pay them for, and I gain it. Hence an individual that employs people maybe have more than 24 hours a day; e.g. If I pay someone to wait in line for an hour (for a ticket), so I don't have to, then I just bought an hour of free time. > I think they'll all work about the same in this context It sounds like you're just guessing then. I tried working it out, but it depends on what you are trying to measure.

jstanley 10y ago

Sure, but some fan wasn't going to make it either way. Why should the fan who is willing to pay more money have to miss out, in favour of a fan who is paying less money?

vertex-four 10y ago
Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the people providing those things.
- jstanley 10y ago
  It's not about deserving in any sort of moral sense. If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? He obviously is willing to give you more, so give it to him. That's fair. That's life. EDIT: And if you sell it to me for $1000, don't be surprised if I turn around and sell it to the $2000 guy. He wants it more than I do, and he's going to get it one way or another.
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    Would your explanation still be as just-so if I chose to sell the item for <=$1000 to you because you are a friend or family?
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    There are numerous reasons why I could and would choose to go with the first person in spite of a lower offer.
  - ctrl-j 10y ago
    But that's not the situation at hand. It's three people offering me $1000 for something, I give it to you because you're the first person. Then, you turn around and say "hey, I'm selling this for $2000 because I never wanted it in the first place!" The two other people who were waiting can't afford it. Some other guy comes along later who can afford it and pays up. It's not fair, it's one of the nasty grimy sides of capitalism. Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> Except perhaps those die-hard fans who do not have the extra money available to see what may be a once-in-a-lifetime show. The problem with this logic is that you assume since the "die-hard" fan does not have the money, he will simply give up and be shut out of being able to go. As someone who was, and still is a huge music fan, I always plan the gigs I want to go see around when I was getting paid and my budget. I was able to balance seeing fairly unknown bands in small venues before they got big (once saw Korn and Marilyn Manson open for Danzig. Or HedPE, System of a Down and Static-X open for Fear Factory) with the larger, more expensive shows like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park, or RUSH. Most of my friends who are also rabid fans will know when a band is coming and plan accordingly. The whole idea that "die-hard" fans are being shut out is nonsense. We plan, we plot, and we scheme to see the bands we want to. I even took a gig at a CD shop so I could go see bands for free. I didn't care how much I was getting paid because the perks of seeing a national act for free with two of my friends was payment enough. To me a "die-hard" fan will find a way regardless. I would categorize more fair weather fans with the attitude you're conveying. If they get a ticket to a "must see" show, then cool, if not, well, it's not a huge deal to them.