18 ms·

I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-condition

I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc. And people expect more exciting and high quality things now, because they have seen a lot (comparably). Someone growing up in the 1930s wasn't able to hop on the interstate and go 300 miles away for the weekend. Those growing up in the 80s were more apt to do that sort of thing, and as mobility has increased, attractions (nicer ones) have been built out over the decades. Now that person who traveled to all sorts of attractions continues to seek out new things -> bigger and better of course. More $$$. The basic, economical attractions are still there if you look. Just think smaller scale. Instead of national parks, go to state parks. Instead of Disney, go to the state fair. Instead of Broadway, find the local theater troupe. Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues. Just because you read about an attraction that seems cool, is 1,500 miles away, and is the best of breed nationwide, doesn't mean you need to or even get to experience it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bluedino 4y ago
>> Someone growing up in the 1930s wasn't able to hop on the interstate and go 300 miles away for the weekend. Those growing up in the 80s were more apt to do that sort of thing You mean 1950's, not 80's
- tmaly 4y ago
  US Highway system was not declared complete till 1992
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    US 59 north out of Houston may be upgraded to an Interstate soon. The overall plan is called the NAFTA Superhighway because it would be a great connection between the populated parts Mexico and Canada.
    - rascul 4y ago
      I guess they'll have to get a new number if that happens. Interstate 59 already exists, running from Louisiana to Georgia. I'm kind of curious what that process looks like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_59 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_59
      - timerol 4y ago
        Google maps already has it as Interstate 69 through Houston, and transitioning back to a state route north and south of the city. The actual numbering system is very simple, and explained at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fn_30AD7Pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fn_30AD7Pk
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - vel0city 4y ago
    US Interstates are different from US Highways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    The difference between 'essentially complete' and 'declared complete' is stuff like 'bypass around small town in Idaho': https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2949 https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2949
- jononomo 4y ago
  Construction of the US Interstate Highway System did not begin until after passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and was not declared complete until 1992.
- LukeShu 4y ago
  Construction started on Interstate system in 1956, and it'd be a while before it was complete enough to be usable.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    In many cases, bridges were more influential in enabling road trips than interstates (or any highways) The Delaware Memorial Bridge allowed ferry-free driving from DC to New York in 1951. (And the NJ Turnpike, which opened the same year, is not a part of the federal Interstate system)
    - LukeShu 4y ago
      That's fair. I didn't address that because the GP post specifically said "interstate", and I didn't feel that the parent post was critiquing the broader point that lots of infrastructure projects between the 1930s and 1980s made travel more palatable, but specifically the association of the interstate system with the 1980s.
- aaronax 4y ago
  I estimated based on my memory of reading about the construction process at rest areas here in ND. Via Wikipedia now, it looks like I was about right. Construction of the very first segments started in 1956. Various milestones were accomplished throughout the 70s and 80s, and not even official "completion" until the 1992, though I'm sure that was just a few segments here and there for the last 5-10 years. In terms of having a substantial system of highways in place out that transformed traveling lifestyles for an age group of children, the general "growing up in the 80s" still seems about right.
  - bluedino 4y ago
    I wonder what 1946 song (Get your kicks on) Route 66 is about. Are you people not Americans? Do you have any idea how big car travel is here and how it's been happening way, way, before the 70's and 80's? My parents drove out to Yellowstone with my grandparents a very long time ago.
    - mint2 4y ago
      I think people are just not very aware of the past including their grandfathers generation these days. My grandfather was a college lecturer and would plan massive road trips each summer in the 60s to all the national parks. These days I doubt a college lecturer could take summer off
      - saghm 4y ago
        >> Are you people not Americans? > I think people are just not very aware of the past including their grandfathers generation these days. It feels surreal to have to even state this, but "being American" does not require that one's grandparents grew up in America. Being a first or second generation immigrant does not make one less "American"
        mint2 4y ago
        Errr soooo yeah the context is how today’s American family outings compares to American family outings of decades past… So you’re right the wording was bad, i wasn’t the one that said “not Americans” but I think that person was confused why so many are making flat out incorrect comments like they don’t know anything about America. My comments was trying to say, “no even multigenerational Americans often don’t know what their grandparents generation was like.” In this context of comparing American vacations across time periods, the group you’re talking about, Recent immigrants, I would hope aren’t commenting because very few would have researched the topic of American vacations from 1920 to 1980.
- WaitWaitWha 4y ago
  I think there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding by some posts between the U.S. Highway System[0] and the Interstate Highway System[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
CPLX 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  I don't see why your point isn't taken more seriously. Perhaps it's the audience of highly compensated tech employees and startup workers, some of whom follow the philosophy of libertarians and Paul Graham.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    His points aren’t taken seriously because they’re confused . Wage theft is a meaningful concept. It means not being paid for work you did in an hourly role because it was done off the clock. It does not mean getting paid less than some internet commenter thinks people should be paid.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    I posted this comment on the discussion forum of a private equity firm that specializes in building companies that use technology to commoditize labor and depress wages.
diogenescynic 4y ago
It's the same with colleges--even state universities now have luxury dorms with one bedroom/one bath units, massive gyms, bigger and nicer libraries and computer labs... and more useless programs that kids don't participate in or get much use from. At a UC I paid over $1000 a quarter in registration fees for those programs that I basically got zero benefits from them. Housing is similar--there aren't many small 1200 sq ft starter homes with a one car garage being built--it's mostly big McMansions with a list of bullet points. There are fewer and fewer affordable entry points to housing and college for the working class to start building wealth from.
dylan604 4y ago
I'm sorry, but I've been to the State Fair and comparing it as a Disney alternative is kind of a joke. State Fairs are glorified carnivals, and probably hire some actual carnys for the month they are open. To compare that to the rides at Disney is really a stretch. You could have at least suggested Six Flags like amusement park instead. Your other points I'll agree with. State Fairs->Disney was just too much of a stretch for me to accept.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Hah yeah I agree State Fairs can be "fun" (for some definition) but it's very different from Disney
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > And people expect more exciting and high quality things now, because they have seen a lot (comparably).
- aaronax 4y ago
  Obviously it is not as good. Disney is literally the best, in the wealthiest nation in the entire world. But a state park will still entertain a family for a day or two, which may or may not be the true goal. Maybe you feel it is necessary to show your children the absolute best entertainment...pay up. (I never went to Disney until I was 25, when I visited for free for 1/2 day thanks to a friend who was working there seasonally.)
  - daveslash 4y ago
    Your "State Fair vs Disney" really struck a nerve with some people! But I agree with your point. I took your comment to generally mean: Things like Baseball games and Disney used to be economical and within reach to the common-everyday family with a tight budget, whereas now they're out of reach for many people. Part of that is because the attractions themselves are on an elevated level compared to days of yore. These same attractions used to be shittier than they are today! Shittier made them cheaper, and more accessible to the masses. If the common-everyday family on a tight budget is willing to settle for a little less-than-the-best experience, there are still plenty of options available in the form of State Fairs, State Parks, etc... Edit: Spelling.
birdyrooster 4y ago
[flagged]
JoeNr76 4y ago
translated: Never complain, proles, just be glad you get some scraps from that ever-growing economy. Even if it's less than your parents.
- switch007 4y ago
  Yup. Billionaires and capitalists don’t need to downgrade their expectations, of course.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
- zaptrem 4y ago
  I think his point is the names have changed but the quality is still there. 1960s Disneyland is more similar to a modern Six Flags, while modern Disneyland has no equivalent in the 60s.
  - psi75 4y ago
    How the quality of Disneyland has evolved is... tricky to evaluate. The rides are almost certainly safer and probably a bit more impressive on a technical front, but the experience itself? I'm not sure and, given that I'm a middle-aged man, I have no desire to go to Disneyland ever. Still, I imagine it was a better experience in the 1960s because it was less crowded. That's not Disneyland's fault, of course. It has gone from a place where a few devoted fans went a few times in their lives to a place where a much larger number of people go only once in their life (because it's just not worth it, in terms of headache, to go more than once, especially if you don't have kids under 12). The general problem is overpopulation--but the good news is that there's a countervailing force built in: the more people there are, the more stuff of value there can be. New York's too congested to live in? Go to Chicago. Chicago becomes full? Live in Minneapolis, or Madison, or some up-and-coming artsy small town most of us have never heard of. So, the problem we actually experience is not overpopulation itself but, rather, the weighted overpopulation that is created by extreme inequality (i.e., by some people having 1,000,000 times more votes and more choices than the rest of us). When some rich douchebag can play the high school bully and buy hotel rooms for $1000 per night (or even buy out the whole hotel) it means everyone who can't pay $1000 per night for lodging suffers. We don't actually need to depopulate the world (although, and I hate to say this, I think traumatic and unplanned depopulation is a high likelihood in the next 50 years) so much as we need to do something about the astronomical footprint of the rich; we could support the global population that exists now if only the world were run by better people and the resources better organized.
neutronicus 4y ago
> The basic, economical attractions are still there if you look. Yeah, I live in Baltimore, and my wife and I go with our toddler to a beach at a state park. It's a 30 minute drive away, little patch of sand on the banks of the Back River, no waves, not more than 4 feet deep at the deepest part of the swimming area. Lots of shaded picnic tables and we bring food from home. More than one playground if the little guy wants a change of pace from the water. Honestly perfect for us, since shallow, placid river water is a lot more fun for a toddler than straight-up ocean breakers, and big shade trees within a hundred feet saves us schlepping a shade structure. It's 18 bucks plus gas for a full- to half-day outing. We bring friends and they're always amazed that it was right under their noses - people in Maryland are just stuck on sitting in traffic for hours and paying for lodging to go to one of the big ocean beach destinations (e.g. Ocean City).
- bombcar 4y ago
  These things exist everywhere - the cheap/free options have no marketing budgets. I fondly remember something similar at Gasworks Park in Seattle.
  - grumpitron 4y ago
    Yes! Lots of good memories grabbing Paseo and then eating it on the Gasworks hill overlooking Lake Union. It gets pretty crowded on nice days, but so do most city parks.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Our spot was the Northlake Tavern; grab a pizza to go and head over.
- RSHEPP 4y ago
  I lived 15 min from Ocean City for 3 months last summer, that place was miserable. Assateague State Park was just south and much better, with wild horses too. But no lodging besides camping.
- memcg 4y ago
brightball 4y ago
As a Clemson fan, I had a really weird experience this year. We didn't make the playoffs for the first time in 6 years, instead getting picked for the Cheez-It Bowl in Orlando...and it was fantastic. I grew up taking a family trip over Christmas break every year to wherever Clemson was playing in a bowl game. This was the 90s, so it was never a top tier game for us but the trips were always great. When my kids got old enough to start taking them on these trips, it was impossible to justify the $1,000+ cost per ticket for each playoff game. Before travel cost was factored in. Tickets to the Cheez-It Bowl were in the $50-80 range and you could pay a little more to get access to the Club Level. Took the whole family to the game and the kids loved it. We all had a great time. And Clemson won (take that Iowa State).
- bombcar 4y ago
  There's something to realize with this - playoff games are important to adults and fans, but kids don't necessarily care about the significance of the game; they'll enjoy the experience and the play of the game.
Aeolun 4y ago
> I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc. You’d think that the profits over the past 60 gears would have been able to pay for a lot of that. But of course these things are owned by shareholders that demand returns, and if you just get a new loan/grant/subsidy to pay for your $108M parking lot (seriously wtf?), there’s that much more to pay out to the most important people of all.
- djbebs 4y ago
  You're welcome to buy Disney shares and subsidize disneyland-gooers at your own expense.
Balgair 4y ago
I'm not so sure. We were going through a family member's childhood boxes recently and came across all their old HS Football bills from the late 1950's. These things were really detailed and really good looking. 8 pages, full color, few ads, with loads of detail on the players for both teams and coaches. All for a public HS football program.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bombcar 4y ago
  High school sports is serious business in many areas, especially Texas, and has been for a loooong time.
onion2k 4y ago
This comes over as a very "Let them eat cake." response.
deeg 4y ago
I think you have a good point. In regard to movies, there's an additional explanation: so many families have home theaters with large flat screen tvs. Cinemas have to compete with that and they do so by ramping up the experience, which of course costs more.
codefreeordie 4y ago
There was a brief window, mostly the 1980s and 1990s, where we had the nicer things, but the prices hadn't really gone up yet. To use the Disneyland example, in the late 1990s, Disneyland tickets could routinely be had off-season for $20 and annual passes were around $100. Adjust that for inflation, and you're still at 1/3 to 1/2 of today's prices. But most of Disneyland's expansion and most of the really groundbreaking things were already in place.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Yeah I love baseball but I gave up on MLB games. I used to travel to do that, now I just watch the home minor league games and even travel to other cities to those those teams. I realized that I had just as much fun at high school games as I ever did at the big guy games so MLB and other minor league stuff is quite fun. Similar, I find smaller parks and venues to go to. They all coast 1/10 - 1/2 as much as "the big guys" and my family has probably more fun as things are less crowded and hectic. We still go to some "major" stuff occasionally but not like when I was growing up. Things were way less refined and cushy and more affordable and less hectic.
deanCommie 4y ago
> everything is just generally "nicer". This is also a big contributor to the rising costs of: * Housing * Food * Construction Which all make regular appearances on HN as people wonder why they all cost more. Safety standards are higher, quality standards are higher, convenience standards are higher. Someone buying a house in the 1950's would have gotten an empty kitchen, no washer or dryer, no granite countertops, no detailing in the back yard. Meals were simpler - 2 or 3 ingredients, mostly stock items, all local. Roads and buildings are built to last longer, have fewer externalities, with more accessibility options for pedestrians, better energy utilization, etc.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Cars are enormously nicer and more advanced than they used to be, yet have largely just kept pace with inflation. Housing in Japan has gotten much nicer too, but rent has stayed fairly reasonable even in Tokyo (which is huge and has still been growing). Plus, even just the cost of land in the US is enormously higher now, ignoring any buildings.
jcpst 4y ago
Growing up, my parents were very anti Disney[land|world]. We always knew it would never be something we were going to. They were offended by the cost and the crowds. Now having a family of my own, we keep the tradition alive. Our kids know Disney(place) as a thing that is overpriced and overcrowded. But, It’s all in what kind of recreation you seek. I’m sure there plenty of people who would be put off by all the camping and canoeing trips we do.
- deebosong 4y ago
  I like that this is a tradition, and I would like to become a member of this party. Anti-Disney, but many, many, maaaaaaany other options for things way more interactive, engaging, interesting, etc.
- neutronicus 4y ago
  My parents were the same, and at the time I felt deprived (my friends spoke glowingly of their Disneyworld trips). But I nevertheless grew into a Disney grinch. (We have roller coasters in Maryland!)
  - bombcar 4y ago
    In SoCal Disneyland was widely considered as being "for the babies" amongst my crowd - the real deal was to go to Magic Mountain where they had a ride that went upside down.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Wow, what a sad story.
  - driverdan 4y ago
    You're right, Disney is sad. Everything they said was true.
  - jcpst 4y ago
    A tear rolled down my face as I resurfaced the trauma of my childhood, knowing that I’ll never know the wonder and awe of the land of Disney. Hopefully I can get my driver’s license renewed soon, so I can pretend the line is for a ride at the land of magic.
uoaei 4y ago
This doesn't seem like a serious suggestion when the conclusion is little more than "austerity for thee, not for me". To shut people out of enjoying things because of perceived "luxuries" that add very little to the experience seems misguided at best. Once the parking lot is renovated, it is not suddenly justified. That is an expense that causes prices to rise, thus affecting the set of people who can access the service. It has real material consequences.
627467 4y ago
> Now that person who traveled to all sorts of attractions continues to seek out new things -> bigger and better of course. More $$$. I wonder if this the only trend pressuring prices up. Another effect of "bigger and better" is that it reduces the likelyhood of competition. And with less competition, there's less downward price pressure. Another possible pressure is on why it has to be better. I don't think it's only consumer pressure. (Surely those who can't pay for "better" would rather stay at "good enough"). The problem is, what regulators consider "good enough" back then is not good enough today. Some call this "progress". But some of these standards could be construed as protectionist barriers of entry
throw8383833jj 4y ago
I suspect that some of what your paying for at disney is all that advertisement they do. >> I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc. I never asked for any of that. I just want some cost effective free options for fun.
lordnacho 4y ago
I doubt it's that much better. My guess is it's MBAs. They figured out that you can squeeze people more and so they're doing it. Before everything was optimized by a business person with as spreadsheet, people would set prices by reasonable guess, and that guess would simply be lower than optimal. For instance there's a village shop where I live. You can get a hand made sandwich for two pounds. Similar factory made sandwiches at Marks would easily be closer to double.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Why would you guess MBAs, and not the thousands of technologists devoting their career to adtech, pricing optimization, A/B testing, data science, etc? "Those damn MBAs" is a lazy scapegoat.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Yes, because programmers etc just love to build tools that squeeze every last nickel out of people by using dark patterns etc. It's the suits that are always pushing pricing efficiency in my experience, not the nerds.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      I would disagree. A business-oriented exec may have a general idea such as "optimize pricing" but the "nerds" (your term) will chime in with "let's employ a neural network-based ML training loop" that they clearly have been eagerly hoping to try out. Doesn't matter anyway. If you've chosen big-corp adtech, datasci, analytics, optimization, etc for a career, not "loving" it is not an excuse.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    It's a shorthand for the type of business idea that has no goal other than short-term optimization. Certainly people without an MBA can do this as well, but the MBA is the archetype of "if it makes money soon, we should do it".
JohnBooty 4y ago
Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues. Yeah. Just because some activities have migrated from being "everyman" activities that 75% of the population can afford to things that 75% of the population can't afford, doesn't mean that reflects the overall reality of the average person's lived experience. Things like MLB/NFL games have greatly outpaced inflation. One reason people keep paying for them (aside from other obvious factors, like love of the game) is because we have been conditioned to believe that they are things "average" people can afford them when in fact that hasn't been true for a long time. Even if sports ticket prices didn't outpace inflation, the fact is that 50 years ago being at the stadium was the best way to see the game. Your other alternative was a tiny, balky TV or radio. These days you can see them at home in HD on a giant screen that would have seemed like science fiction 25 years ago and in fact, because of cable bundling, you may already be paying for this privilege even if you don't want to. (edit: There are still things that are special about the live experience, but the home experience has become massively better than it used to be) So like collecting physical music, or attending movies in movie theaters as opposed to Netflixing them it makes some level of sense for live sports attendance to migrate from "everyman activity" to "premium niche thing for diehard fans with disposable income." This is unfortunate in many ways, and it is a loss, but it does not necessarily equate to a degradation of average quality of life. That would only be the case if average people no longer had any affordable leisure options ...if there were no new affordable to replace those which migrated upscale. (FWIW, I say all of this as a sports fan who does enjoy attending some games each year)
- OJFord 4y ago
  Also isn't it just way better on television? The angle is always (or, to many nines of the time) great, always close. I'm not big into sports, I go on and off following ice hockey (the Leafs), so maybe that explains it, but I just think - money aside - going to see a game in person would be an all-round inferior experience. (Pay for definitely-fast food, queue for public loos, potentially surrounded by people I don't want to watch with, ...)
  - wvenable 4y ago
    It's not fair to say that it's an inferior or superior experience. What it is, though, is a different experience. I occasionally enjoy going to a game in real life for that difference. If your purpose is just to watch a game you have so many more options so going in person has become a luxury experience entirely because it's no longer necessary.
arrrg 4y ago
Just one thing: National parks aren’t exactly expensive, right? During our travels through the US they definitely provided the most bang for the buck, especially given that we had the $80 annual pass. In that context it was actually state parks that were an additional cost for us, though certainly never any kind of substantial cost. The tiniest fraction of our budget. Doing stuff in cities was much more expensive and we didn’t even consider visiting Disneyland, even though we actually stayed a couple of nights in Orlando (to visit the Kennedy Space Center – one of the most expensive things we did - followed by a visit to the neighboring state park, which was very cheap). We never stayed inside or even just near the parks, so that certainly helped. Our budget of spending between $100 and $150 per night for three people always felt very manageable (mostly AirBnB and so we nearly always had a kitchen to cook food) but I can see how that might be too much for some people. I think had we wanted to stay closer to the national parks (to explore them more thoroughly instead of basically doing day trips to like twenty of them) we would have spent a bit more on places to sleep (more like $200). The fun things to do in national parks don’t cost any additional money, at least usually. I guess if you want to ride a mule down to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon? But even that’s more limited by scarcity than price. Maybe there are little costs here and there (like renting bikes in the Everglades) but we definitely spent more on t-shirts about national parks than we did on things to do in national parks. They felt like a real benevolent gift most of the time, expect when there were too many other people, I guess (though since we were one of those too many people we could hardly complain).
- xahrepap 4y ago
  I've done a handful of National Park trips in the last year and a half (Yellow Stone, a few in southern Utah). I would say National Park trips are "expensive" in ways other than the cash it takes to get in. We tried to plan our trips avoiding the major holidays and spring/fall breaks of the local school districts, etc. - They're overly crowded. It feels like a theme park. Looking at a waterfall and you're standing shoulder to shoulder with strangers. It's crazy. - Parking is nearly impossible to find. Some days you have to pay for parking and bus into the park. - Every campground was full. Hotels and BNBs are not exactly cheap in those areas. We'd ask workers/etc about the traffic and they'd always say stuff like, "oh yeah, this is nothing. You should've seen it X weeks ago!" So, sure the National Park itself is peanuts to get admission. But it was disappointing in a lot of ways. For those reasons, I would be more interested in paying more dollars to see State parks, if all the other "costs" were "cheaper" :)
runako 4y ago
"Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues" This is a great option. I would add to this (smaller) college events. We take family outings to see collegiate volleyball, which is free (even parking!) and food is priced like the 1980s. It is possible to watch Olympians compete for less than the price of a movie ticket. Similarly, the colleges near us have good (although small) museums. And student-run theaters often have public events that do not cost a lot of money.
- bombcar 4y ago
  In parts of the country high school sports are a big deal, and often cheap or free. And almost by definition local. https://kixs.com/most-expensive-and-biggest-texas-high-school-football-stadiums/ https://kixs.com/most-expensive-and-biggest-texas-high-schoo...
rayiner 4y ago
The trouble with these comparisons is that they assume the world remains static while only prices change. But the positional status of the same kind of product or the same brand can also change in the market. For example, movie theaters used to be the only way to watch movies in 1960. Today, big screen LCDs and streaming are affordable to the median family. As a result, theaters have had to move upmarket to offer a compelling alternative to watching movies at home. It’s not just that the theaters are way nicer, which they are, but that they necessarily occupy a higher end segment of the entertainment sector because other products have filled in some of the mass market segment. Cars are another good example of this. A 1985 Honda Accord is just not as nice of a car as a 2022 Honda Accord: https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1985-accord_sedan https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1985-accord_sedan. Not only in absolute terms, but in relative terms. The Accord occupies a premium segment of the market today compared to 1985. Disney, likewise, is much bigger and better today. The hotels are much nicer. Tech conditions people to expect better products for less money every year, but that doesn’t translate into meat space. A bigger park with more attractions, nicer and cleaner hotel rooms, etc., all cost more to build and maintain even in inflation-adjusted terms.
- havblue 4y ago
  I agree that cars are better, but are vacation destinations like Disney really better? If you see parade footage from magic kingdom in the nineties you'll see that the crowds are far less. Sure there's more variety, more thrill rides and more alcohol, but I'm not sure the crowds and increased expenses are worth it. Ditto on Las Vegas as far as prices are concerned.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I mean “better” in material terms. Things were just more bare bones back then: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/the-old-disneyland-hotel-photo-taken-late-70s-to-early-80s--388013324121927086/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/the-old-disneyland-hotel-photo...
  - thrashh 4y ago
    There’s definitely more quality to the park. There’s also more people but I think that’s an entirely separate issue. There are just more people on Earth than there was 10, 20 or 500 years ago. Maybe we aren’t building enough new attractions. There is probably money in it.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
I read an interview with a CEO of Efteling once (basically Dutch Disneyland) and they asked him if they would ever introduce a "fast pass". His answer was that they would never do such a thing because they want don't want their park to discriminate between rich and poor. All families are equal inside the gates. You can even take your own food and go for a picknic.
johnnyo 4y ago
I think this misses the point. In the 1960s the “best of breed” entertainment (like Disney) was a available to middle class families. They also had the option of going to a cheap state fair, or local theatre, or minor league baseball. Now, the middle class can’t afford those “best of breed” entertainment venues like they used to.
clairity 4y ago
> "Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues." until you go to the drew league to see your friend play, and lebron decides to show up (kyrie was a no-show of course). then you can't get in for any amount of money because all the bandwagoners jam the sidewalks and doorways, not to mention the gym. (not bitter)
scelerat 4y ago
> Just because you read about an attraction that seems cool, is 1,500 miles away, and is the best of breed nationwide, doesn't mean you need to or even get to experience it. FOMO is real and amplified by media. Most medium-size cities in the US have plenty of family-friendly activities and entertainment. My grandpa and his brothers would regularly cart their families a few miles up a canyon (now a regional park) to play pinochle and bocce while the kids raced up hills and splashed in a stream. These are things still accessible to most people.
xg15 4y ago
> Instead of Disney, go to the state fair. That's essentially the "skip the avocado toast" type of logic. Except there were already state fairs in the 60s and Disney in the 60s and the latter was already a whole different level back then. So there has been real change if back then you could afford to take your kids to Disney and today the budget is only enough for the state fair anymore.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  I’m just still sad they killed DisneyQuest.
xg15 4y ago
Ok, out of couriosity: How many people who comment in this thread would actually have difficulty budgeting a trip to Disneyland if they wanted? (Edit: this was supposed to be a top-level comment, not a reply. Sorry!)
- zbyte64 4y ago
  How many people commenting here actually have a family
  - greedo 4y ago
    I have a family. I could afford to go to either DisneyWorld or DisneyLand. I would never do so since the value proposition is negative in my opinion.
- cbm-vic-20 4y ago
  I don't mind paying for good quality experiences. I don't like to feel like I'm being fleeced while doing so.
bmitc 4y ago
> I think everything is just generally "nicer". That's an interesting perspective that I wouldn't have expected. I didn't grow up anywhere near the 50s, but I feel like everything is worse from even my childhood in the 90s and 2000s. Malls are decrepit, national and state parks are under maintained but overrun with visitors, stadium seats could not be smaller (and are often so vertical in the "affordable" seats it creates vertigo sensations), parking lots are full of gigantic cracks and poorly marked areas and holes, theme parks are under maintained and expensive with huge lines and many from my childhood closed down, and it goes on and on. I went to an NFL game (only because I got free tickets). It took around 45 minutes from our car in the parking lot (not including the time to be directed to park), in a lot that I'm pretty sure was not paved at all, to get to our seats. The seats were so high up, we could barely see anything. We might as well have been watching from a nearby skyscraper. And the seats were sardine seats, as in sitting sideways so as to not hit the people in front of you with your knees. Those seats probably cost those around me hundreds of dollars. It's also well known that many people from those older times had rents and mortgages at much smaller percentages of their monthly income than those today, whereas today they can exceed 50% easily.
- golemiprague 4y ago
- Melatonic 4y ago
  Some things are definitely nicer and some are not. Malls are worse maybe overall but there are some that are also extremely nice now. And is it not also a huge improvement that you can just easily order something from ease at home without having to go to a crowded mall in the first place? The housing thing though for sure is a problem. Then again we are now concentrating more and more in big cities. The one thing people always miss with these calculations is food. We think food is expensive now but the cost of chicken or beef is insanely cheap relative to really what it should be (or what it once was). A steak in the 1920s was probably a real treat.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Malls are just ... dead - there are a few that are kept up and maintained but very, very few new ones being built.
namelessoracle 4y ago
I went to Disney World this year and Disney World in the 90s. Disney World now was not "nicer" than it was then, about the same, all the "enhancements" benefit Disney more than me the customer in my opinion, and in fact many of the attractions looked like they were barely hanging on. But Im more impressed by well made animatronics than video screens (which i can do at home) so maybe Im the wrong person to ask. I do remember the food tasting better and being more affordable in the 90s too. But we can chalk that up to the time difference. Disney seems to be going after DINC people now instead of families with their pricing and overall strategy. Good luck with that.
France_is_bacon 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bluedino 4y ago

>> Someone growing up in the 1930s wasn't able to hop on the interstate and go 300 miles away for the weekend. Those growing up in the 80s were more apt to do that sort of thing You mean 1950's, not 80's

tmaly 4y ago
US Highway system was not declared complete till 1992
- orangepurple 4y ago
  US 59 north out of Houston may be upgraded to an Interstate soon. The overall plan is called the NAFTA Superhighway because it would be a great connection between the populated parts Mexico and Canada.
  - rascul 4y ago
    I guess they'll have to get a new number if that happens. Interstate 59 already exists, running from Louisiana to Georgia. I'm kind of curious what that process looks like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_59 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_59
    - timerol 4y ago
      Google maps already has it as Interstate 69 through Houston, and transitioning back to a state route north and south of the city. The actual numbering system is very simple, and explained at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fn_30AD7Pk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fn_30AD7Pk
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- vel0city 4y ago
  US Interstates are different from US Highways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  The difference between 'essentially complete' and 'declared complete' is stuff like 'bypass around small town in Idaho': https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2949 https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2949
jononomo 4y ago
Construction of the US Interstate Highway System did not begin until after passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and was not declared complete until 1992.
LukeShu 4y ago
Construction started on Interstate system in 1956, and it'd be a while before it was complete enough to be usable.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  In many cases, bridges were more influential in enabling road trips than interstates (or any highways) The Delaware Memorial Bridge allowed ferry-free driving from DC to New York in 1951. (And the NJ Turnpike, which opened the same year, is not a part of the federal Interstate system)
  - LukeShu 4y ago
    That's fair. I didn't address that because the GP post specifically said "interstate", and I didn't feel that the parent post was critiquing the broader point that lots of infrastructure projects between the 1930s and 1980s made travel more palatable, but specifically the association of the interstate system with the 1980s.
aaronax 4y ago
I estimated based on my memory of reading about the construction process at rest areas here in ND. Via Wikipedia now, it looks like I was about right. Construction of the very first segments started in 1956. Various milestones were accomplished throughout the 70s and 80s, and not even official "completion" until the 1992, though I'm sure that was just a few segments here and there for the last 5-10 years. In terms of having a substantial system of highways in place out that transformed traveling lifestyles for an age group of children, the general "growing up in the 80s" still seems about right.
- bluedino 4y ago
  I wonder what 1946 song (Get your kicks on) Route 66 is about. Are you people not Americans? Do you have any idea how big car travel is here and how it's been happening way, way, before the 70's and 80's? My parents drove out to Yellowstone with my grandparents a very long time ago.
  - mint2 4y ago
    I think people are just not very aware of the past including their grandfathers generation these days. My grandfather was a college lecturer and would plan massive road trips each summer in the 60s to all the national parks. These days I doubt a college lecturer could take summer off
    - saghm 4y ago
      >> Are you people not Americans? > I think people are just not very aware of the past including their grandfathers generation these days. It feels surreal to have to even state this, but "being American" does not require that one's grandparents grew up in America. Being a first or second generation immigrant does not make one less "American"
      - mint2 4y ago
        Errr soooo yeah the context is how today’s American family outings compares to American family outings of decades past… So you’re right the wording was bad, i wasn’t the one that said “not Americans” but I think that person was confused why so many are making flat out incorrect comments like they don’t know anything about America. My comments was trying to say, “no even multigenerational Americans often don’t know what their grandparents generation was like.” In this context of comparing American vacations across time periods, the group you’re talking about, Recent immigrants, I would hope aren’t commenting because very few would have researched the topic of American vacations from 1920 to 1980.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
I think there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding by some posts between the U.S. Highway System[0] and the Interstate Highway System[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

CPLX 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
formerkrogemp 4y ago
I don't see why your point isn't taken more seriously. Perhaps it's the audience of highly compensated tech employees and startup workers, some of whom follow the philosophy of libertarians and Paul Graham.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  His points aren’t taken seriously because they’re confused . Wage theft is a meaningful concept. It means not being paid for work you did in an hourly role because it was done off the clock. It does not mean getting paid less than some internet commenter thinks people should be paid.
- CPLX 4y ago
  I posted this comment on the discussion forum of a private equity firm that specializes in building companies that use technology to commoditize labor and depress wages.

diogenescynic 4y ago

It's the same with colleges--even state universities now have luxury dorms with one bedroom/one bath units, massive gyms, bigger and nicer libraries and computer labs... and more useless programs that kids don't participate in or get much use from. At a UC I paid over $1000 a quarter in registration fees for those programs that I basically got zero benefits from them. Housing is similar--there aren't many small 1200 sq ft starter homes with a one car garage being built--it's mostly big McMansions with a list of bullet points. There are fewer and fewer affordable entry points to housing and college for the working class to start building wealth from.

dylan604 4y ago

I'm sorry, but I've been to the State Fair and comparing it as a Disney alternative is kind of a joke. State Fairs are glorified carnivals, and probably hire some actual carnys for the month they are open. To compare that to the rides at Disney is really a stretch. You could have at least suggested Six Flags like amusement park instead. Your other points I'll agree with. State Fairs->Disney was just too much of a stretch for me to accept.

raverbashing 4y ago
Hah yeah I agree State Fairs can be "fun" (for some definition) but it's very different from Disney
alex_sf 4y ago
> And people expect more exciting and high quality things now, because they have seen a lot (comparably).
aaronax 4y ago
Obviously it is not as good. Disney is literally the best, in the wealthiest nation in the entire world. But a state park will still entertain a family for a day or two, which may or may not be the true goal. Maybe you feel it is necessary to show your children the absolute best entertainment...pay up. (I never went to Disney until I was 25, when I visited for free for 1/2 day thanks to a friend who was working there seasonally.)
- daveslash 4y ago
  Your "State Fair vs Disney" really struck a nerve with some people! But I agree with your point. I took your comment to generally mean: Things like Baseball games and Disney used to be economical and within reach to the common-everyday family with a tight budget, whereas now they're out of reach for many people. Part of that is because the attractions themselves are on an elevated level compared to days of yore. These same attractions used to be shittier than they are today! Shittier made them cheaper, and more accessible to the masses. If the common-everyday family on a tight budget is willing to settle for a little less-than-the-best experience, there are still plenty of options available in the form of State Fairs, State Parks, etc... Edit: Spelling.

birdyrooster 4y ago

[flagged]

JoeNr76 4y ago

translated: Never complain, proles, just be glad you get some scraps from that ever-growing economy. Even if it's less than your parents.

switch007 4y ago
Yup. Billionaires and capitalists don’t need to downgrade their expectations, of course.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
zaptrem 4y ago
I think his point is the names have changed but the quality is still there. 1960s Disneyland is more similar to a modern Six Flags, while modern Disneyland has no equivalent in the 60s.
- psi75 4y ago
  How the quality of Disneyland has evolved is... tricky to evaluate. The rides are almost certainly safer and probably a bit more impressive on a technical front, but the experience itself? I'm not sure and, given that I'm a middle-aged man, I have no desire to go to Disneyland ever. Still, I imagine it was a better experience in the 1960s because it was less crowded. That's not Disneyland's fault, of course. It has gone from a place where a few devoted fans went a few times in their lives to a place where a much larger number of people go only once in their life (because it's just not worth it, in terms of headache, to go more than once, especially if you don't have kids under 12). The general problem is overpopulation--but the good news is that there's a countervailing force built in: the more people there are, the more stuff of value there can be. New York's too congested to live in? Go to Chicago. Chicago becomes full? Live in Minneapolis, or Madison, or some up-and-coming artsy small town most of us have never heard of. So, the problem we actually experience is not overpopulation itself but, rather, the weighted overpopulation that is created by extreme inequality (i.e., by some people having 1,000,000 times more votes and more choices than the rest of us). When some rich douchebag can play the high school bully and buy hotel rooms for $1000 per night (or even buy out the whole hotel) it means everyone who can't pay $1000 per night for lodging suffers. We don't actually need to depopulate the world (although, and I hate to say this, I think traumatic and unplanned depopulation is a high likelihood in the next 50 years) so much as we need to do something about the astronomical footprint of the rich; we could support the global population that exists now if only the world were run by better people and the resources better organized.

neutronicus 4y ago

> The basic, economical attractions are still there if you look. Yeah, I live in Baltimore, and my wife and I go with our toddler to a beach at a state park. It's a 30 minute drive away, little patch of sand on the banks of the Back River, no waves, not more than 4 feet deep at the deepest part of the swimming area. Lots of shaded picnic tables and we bring food from home. More than one playground if the little guy wants a change of pace from the water. Honestly perfect for us, since shallow, placid river water is a lot more fun for a toddler than straight-up ocean breakers, and big shade trees within a hundred feet saves us schlepping a shade structure. It's 18 bucks plus gas for a full- to half-day outing. We bring friends and they're always amazed that it was right under their noses - people in Maryland are just stuck on sitting in traffic for hours and paying for lodging to go to one of the big ocean beach destinations (e.g. Ocean City).

bombcar 4y ago
These things exist everywhere - the cheap/free options have no marketing budgets. I fondly remember something similar at Gasworks Park in Seattle.
- grumpitron 4y ago
  Yes! Lots of good memories grabbing Paseo and then eating it on the Gasworks hill overlooking Lake Union. It gets pretty crowded on nice days, but so do most city parks.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Our spot was the Northlake Tavern; grab a pizza to go and head over.
RSHEPP 4y ago
I lived 15 min from Ocean City for 3 months last summer, that place was miserable. Assateague State Park was just south and much better, with wild horses too. But no lodging besides camping.
memcg 4y ago

brightball 4y ago

As a Clemson fan, I had a really weird experience this year. We didn't make the playoffs for the first time in 6 years, instead getting picked for the Cheez-It Bowl in Orlando...and it was fantastic. I grew up taking a family trip over Christmas break every year to wherever Clemson was playing in a bowl game. This was the 90s, so it was never a top tier game for us but the trips were always great. When my kids got old enough to start taking them on these trips, it was impossible to justify the $1,000+ cost per ticket for each playoff game. Before travel cost was factored in. Tickets to the Cheez-It Bowl were in the $50-80 range and you could pay a little more to get access to the Club Level. Took the whole family to the game and the kids loved it. We all had a great time. And Clemson won (take that Iowa State).

bombcar 4y ago
There's something to realize with this - playoff games are important to adults and fans, but kids don't necessarily care about the significance of the game; they'll enjoy the experience and the play of the game.

Aeolun 4y ago

> I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc. You’d think that the profits over the past 60 gears would have been able to pay for a lot of that. But of course these things are owned by shareholders that demand returns, and if you just get a new loan/grant/subsidy to pay for your $108M parking lot (seriously wtf?), there’s that much more to pay out to the most important people of all.

djbebs 4y ago
You're welcome to buy Disney shares and subsidize disneyland-gooers at your own expense.

Balgair 4y ago

I'm not so sure. We were going through a family member's childhood boxes recently and came across all their old HS Football bills from the late 1950's. These things were really detailed and really good looking. 8 pages, full color, few ads, with loads of detail on the players for both teams and coaches. All for a public HS football program.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bombcar 4y ago
High school sports is serious business in many areas, especially Texas, and has been for a loooong time.

onion2k 4y ago

This comes over as a very "Let them eat cake." response.

deeg 4y ago

I think you have a good point. In regard to movies, there's an additional explanation: so many families have home theaters with large flat screen tvs. Cinemas have to compete with that and they do so by ramping up the experience, which of course costs more.

codefreeordie 4y ago

There was a brief window, mostly the 1980s and 1990s, where we had the nicer things, but the prices hadn't really gone up yet. To use the Disneyland example, in the late 1990s, Disneyland tickets could routinely be had off-season for $20 and annual passes were around $100. Adjust that for inflation, and you're still at 1/3 to 1/2 of today's prices. But most of Disneyland's expansion and most of the really groundbreaking things were already in place.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Yeah I love baseball but I gave up on MLB games. I used to travel to do that, now I just watch the home minor league games and even travel to other cities to those those teams. I realized that I had just as much fun at high school games as I ever did at the big guy games so MLB and other minor league stuff is quite fun. Similar, I find smaller parks and venues to go to. They all coast 1/10 - 1/2 as much as "the big guys" and my family has probably more fun as things are less crowded and hectic. We still go to some "major" stuff occasionally but not like when I was growing up. Things were way less refined and cushy and more affordable and less hectic.

deanCommie 4y ago

> everything is just generally "nicer". This is also a big contributor to the rising costs of: * Housing * Food * Construction Which all make regular appearances on HN as people wonder why they all cost more. Safety standards are higher, quality standards are higher, convenience standards are higher. Someone buying a house in the 1950's would have gotten an empty kitchen, no washer or dryer, no granite countertops, no detailing in the back yard. Meals were simpler - 2 or 3 ingredients, mostly stock items, all local. Roads and buildings are built to last longer, have fewer externalities, with more accessibility options for pedestrians, better energy utilization, etc.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
Cars are enormously nicer and more advanced than they used to be, yet have largely just kept pace with inflation. Housing in Japan has gotten much nicer too, but rent has stayed fairly reasonable even in Tokyo (which is huge and has still been growing). Plus, even just the cost of land in the US is enormously higher now, ignoring any buildings.

jcpst 4y ago

Growing up, my parents were very anti Disney[land|world]. We always knew it would never be something we were going to. They were offended by the cost and the crowds. Now having a family of my own, we keep the tradition alive. Our kids know Disney(place) as a thing that is overpriced and overcrowded. But, It’s all in what kind of recreation you seek. I’m sure there plenty of people who would be put off by all the camping and canoeing trips we do.

deebosong 4y ago
I like that this is a tradition, and I would like to become a member of this party. Anti-Disney, but many, many, maaaaaaany other options for things way more interactive, engaging, interesting, etc.
neutronicus 4y ago
My parents were the same, and at the time I felt deprived (my friends spoke glowingly of their Disneyworld trips). But I nevertheless grew into a Disney grinch. (We have roller coasters in Maryland!)
- bombcar 4y ago
  In SoCal Disneyland was widely considered as being "for the babies" amongst my crowd - the real deal was to go to Magic Mountain where they had a ride that went upside down.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Wow, what a sad story.
- driverdan 4y ago
  You're right, Disney is sad. Everything they said was true.
- jcpst 4y ago
  A tear rolled down my face as I resurfaced the trauma of my childhood, knowing that I’ll never know the wonder and awe of the land of Disney. Hopefully I can get my driver’s license renewed soon, so I can pretend the line is for a ride at the land of magic.

uoaei 4y ago

This doesn't seem like a serious suggestion when the conclusion is little more than "austerity for thee, not for me". To shut people out of enjoying things because of perceived "luxuries" that add very little to the experience seems misguided at best. Once the parking lot is renovated, it is not suddenly justified. That is an expense that causes prices to rise, thus affecting the set of people who can access the service. It has real material consequences.

627467 4y ago

> Now that person who traveled to all sorts of attractions continues to seek out new things -> bigger and better of course. More $$$. I wonder if this the only trend pressuring prices up. Another effect of "bigger and better" is that it reduces the likelyhood of competition. And with less competition, there's less downward price pressure. Another possible pressure is on why it has to be better. I don't think it's only consumer pressure. (Surely those who can't pay for "better" would rather stay at "good enough"). The problem is, what regulators consider "good enough" back then is not good enough today. Some call this "progress". But some of these standards could be construed as protectionist barriers of entry

throw8383833jj 4y ago

I suspect that some of what your paying for at disney is all that advertisement they do. >> I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc. I never asked for any of that. I just want some cost effective free options for fun.

lordnacho 4y ago

I doubt it's that much better. My guess is it's MBAs. They figured out that you can squeeze people more and so they're doing it. Before everything was optimized by a business person with as spreadsheet, people would set prices by reasonable guess, and that guess would simply be lower than optimal. For instance there's a village shop where I live. You can get a hand made sandwich for two pounds. Similar factory made sandwiches at Marks would easily be closer to double.

listenallyall 4y ago
Why would you guess MBAs, and not the thousands of technologists devoting their career to adtech, pricing optimization, A/B testing, data science, etc? "Those damn MBAs" is a lazy scapegoat.
- greedo 4y ago
  Yes, because programmers etc just love to build tools that squeeze every last nickel out of people by using dark patterns etc. It's the suits that are always pushing pricing efficiency in my experience, not the nerds.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    I would disagree. A business-oriented exec may have a general idea such as "optimize pricing" but the "nerds" (your term) will chime in with "let's employ a neural network-based ML training loop" that they clearly have been eagerly hoping to try out. Doesn't matter anyway. If you've chosen big-corp adtech, datasci, analytics, optimization, etc for a career, not "loving" it is not an excuse.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  It's a shorthand for the type of business idea that has no goal other than short-term optimization. Certainly people without an MBA can do this as well, but the MBA is the archetype of "if it makes money soon, we should do it".

JohnBooty 4y ago

Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues. Yeah. Just because some activities have migrated from being "everyman" activities that 75% of the population can afford to things that 75% of the population can't afford, doesn't mean that reflects the overall reality of the average person's lived experience. Things like MLB/NFL games have greatly outpaced inflation. One reason people keep paying for them (aside from other obvious factors, like love of the game) is because we have been conditioned to believe that they are things "average" people can afford them when in fact that hasn't been true for a long time. Even if sports ticket prices didn't outpace inflation, the fact is that 50 years ago being at the stadium was the best way to see the game. Your other alternative was a tiny, balky TV or radio. These days you can see them at home in HD on a giant screen that would have seemed like science fiction 25 years ago and in fact, because of cable bundling, you may already be paying for this privilege even if you don't want to. (edit: There are still things that are special about the live experience, but the home experience has become massively better than it used to be) So like collecting physical music, or attending movies in movie theaters as opposed to Netflixing them it makes some level of sense for live sports attendance to migrate from "everyman activity" to "premium niche thing for diehard fans with disposable income." This is unfortunate in many ways, and it is a loss, but it does not necessarily equate to a degradation of average quality of life. That would only be the case if average people no longer had any affordable leisure options ...if there were no new affordable to replace those which migrated upscale. (FWIW, I say all of this as a sports fan who does enjoy attending some games each year)

OJFord 4y ago
Also isn't it just way better on television? The angle is always (or, to many nines of the time) great, always close. I'm not big into sports, I go on and off following ice hockey (the Leafs), so maybe that explains it, but I just think - money aside - going to see a game in person would be an all-round inferior experience. (Pay for definitely-fast food, queue for public loos, potentially surrounded by people I don't want to watch with, ...)
- wvenable 4y ago
  It's not fair to say that it's an inferior or superior experience. What it is, though, is a different experience. I occasionally enjoy going to a game in real life for that difference. If your purpose is just to watch a game you have so many more options so going in person has become a luxury experience entirely because it's no longer necessary.

arrrg 4y ago

Just one thing: National parks aren’t exactly expensive, right? During our travels through the US they definitely provided the most bang for the buck, especially given that we had the $80 annual pass. In that context it was actually state parks that were an additional cost for us, though certainly never any kind of substantial cost. The tiniest fraction of our budget. Doing stuff in cities was much more expensive and we didn’t even consider visiting Disneyland, even though we actually stayed a couple of nights in Orlando (to visit the Kennedy Space Center – one of the most expensive things we did - followed by a visit to the neighboring state park, which was very cheap). We never stayed inside or even just near the parks, so that certainly helped. Our budget of spending between $100 and $150 per night for three people always felt very manageable (mostly AirBnB and so we nearly always had a kitchen to cook food) but I can see how that might be too much for some people. I think had we wanted to stay closer to the national parks (to explore them more thoroughly instead of basically doing day trips to like twenty of them) we would have spent a bit more on places to sleep (more like $200). The fun things to do in national parks don’t cost any additional money, at least usually. I guess if you want to ride a mule down to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon? But even that’s more limited by scarcity than price. Maybe there are little costs here and there (like renting bikes in the Everglades) but we definitely spent more on t-shirts about national parks than we did on things to do in national parks. They felt like a real benevolent gift most of the time, expect when there were too many other people, I guess (though since we were one of those too many people we could hardly complain).

xahrepap 4y ago
I've done a handful of National Park trips in the last year and a half (Yellow Stone, a few in southern Utah). I would say National Park trips are "expensive" in ways other than the cash it takes to get in. We tried to plan our trips avoiding the major holidays and spring/fall breaks of the local school districts, etc. - They're overly crowded. It feels like a theme park. Looking at a waterfall and you're standing shoulder to shoulder with strangers. It's crazy. - Parking is nearly impossible to find. Some days you have to pay for parking and bus into the park. - Every campground was full. Hotels and BNBs are not exactly cheap in those areas. We'd ask workers/etc about the traffic and they'd always say stuff like, "oh yeah, this is nothing. You should've seen it X weeks ago!" So, sure the National Park itself is peanuts to get admission. But it was disappointing in a lot of ways. For those reasons, I would be more interested in paying more dollars to see State parks, if all the other "costs" were "cheaper" :)

runako 4y ago

"Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues" This is a great option. I would add to this (smaller) college events. We take family outings to see collegiate volleyball, which is free (even parking!) and food is priced like the 1980s. It is possible to watch Olympians compete for less than the price of a movie ticket. Similarly, the colleges near us have good (although small) museums. And student-run theaters often have public events that do not cost a lot of money.

bombcar 4y ago
In parts of the country high school sports are a big deal, and often cheap or free. And almost by definition local. https://kixs.com/most-expensive-and-biggest-texas-high-school-football-stadiums/ https://kixs.com/most-expensive-and-biggest-texas-high-schoo...

rayiner 4y ago

The trouble with these comparisons is that they assume the world remains static while only prices change. But the positional status of the same kind of product or the same brand can also change in the market. For example, movie theaters used to be the only way to watch movies in 1960. Today, big screen LCDs and streaming are affordable to the median family. As a result, theaters have had to move upmarket to offer a compelling alternative to watching movies at home. It’s not just that the theaters are way nicer, which they are, but that they necessarily occupy a higher end segment of the entertainment sector because other products have filled in some of the mass market segment. Cars are another good example of this. A 1985 Honda Accord is just not as nice of a car as a 2022 Honda Accord: https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1985-accord_sedan https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1985-accord_sedan. Not only in absolute terms, but in relative terms. The Accord occupies a premium segment of the market today compared to 1985. Disney, likewise, is much bigger and better today. The hotels are much nicer. Tech conditions people to expect better products for less money every year, but that doesn’t translate into meat space. A bigger park with more attractions, nicer and cleaner hotel rooms, etc., all cost more to build and maintain even in inflation-adjusted terms.

havblue 4y ago
I agree that cars are better, but are vacation destinations like Disney really better? If you see parade footage from magic kingdom in the nineties you'll see that the crowds are far less. Sure there's more variety, more thrill rides and more alcohol, but I'm not sure the crowds and increased expenses are worth it. Ditto on Las Vegas as far as prices are concerned.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I mean “better” in material terms. Things were just more bare bones back then: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/the-old-disneyland-hotel-photo-taken-late-70s-to-early-80s--388013324121927086/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/the-old-disneyland-hotel-photo...
- thrashh 4y ago
  There’s definitely more quality to the park. There’s also more people but I think that’s an entirely separate issue. There are just more people on Earth than there was 10, 20 or 500 years ago. Maybe we aren’t building enough new attractions. There is probably money in it.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

I read an interview with a CEO of Efteling once (basically Dutch Disneyland) and they asked him if they would ever introduce a "fast pass". His answer was that they would never do such a thing because they want don't want their park to discriminate between rich and poor. All families are equal inside the gates. You can even take your own food and go for a picknic.

johnnyo 4y ago

I think this misses the point. In the 1960s the “best of breed” entertainment (like Disney) was a available to middle class families. They also had the option of going to a cheap state fair, or local theatre, or minor league baseball. Now, the middle class can’t afford those “best of breed” entertainment venues like they used to.

clairity 4y ago

> "Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues." until you go to the drew league to see your friend play, and lebron decides to show up (kyrie was a no-show of course). then you can't get in for any amount of money because all the bandwagoners jam the sidewalks and doorways, not to mention the gym. (not bitter)

scelerat 4y ago

> Just because you read about an attraction that seems cool, is 1,500 miles away, and is the best of breed nationwide, doesn't mean you need to or even get to experience it. FOMO is real and amplified by media. Most medium-size cities in the US have plenty of family-friendly activities and entertainment. My grandpa and his brothers would regularly cart their families a few miles up a canyon (now a regional park) to play pinochle and bocce while the kids raced up hills and splashed in a stream. These are things still accessible to most people.

xg15 4y ago

> Instead of Disney, go to the state fair. That's essentially the "skip the avocado toast" type of logic. Except there were already state fairs in the 60s and Disney in the 60s and the latter was already a whole different level back then. So there has been real change if back then you could afford to take your kids to Disney and today the budget is only enough for the state fair anymore.

selimthegrim 4y ago
I’m just still sad they killed DisneyQuest.

xg15 4y ago

Ok, out of couriosity: How many people who comment in this thread would actually have difficulty budgeting a trip to Disneyland if they wanted? (Edit: this was supposed to be a top-level comment, not a reply. Sorry!)

zbyte64 4y ago
How many people commenting here actually have a family
- greedo 4y ago
  I have a family. I could afford to go to either DisneyWorld or DisneyLand. I would never do so since the value proposition is negative in my opinion.
cbm-vic-20 4y ago
I don't mind paying for good quality experiences. I don't like to feel like I'm being fleeced while doing so.

bmitc 4y ago

> I think everything is just generally "nicer". That's an interesting perspective that I wouldn't have expected. I didn't grow up anywhere near the 50s, but I feel like everything is worse from even my childhood in the 90s and 2000s. Malls are decrepit, national and state parks are under maintained but overrun with visitors, stadium seats could not be smaller (and are often so vertical in the "affordable" seats it creates vertigo sensations), parking lots are full of gigantic cracks and poorly marked areas and holes, theme parks are under maintained and expensive with huge lines and many from my childhood closed down, and it goes on and on. I went to an NFL game (only because I got free tickets). It took around 45 minutes from our car in the parking lot (not including the time to be directed to park), in a lot that I'm pretty sure was not paved at all, to get to our seats. The seats were so high up, we could barely see anything. We might as well have been watching from a nearby skyscraper. And the seats were sardine seats, as in sitting sideways so as to not hit the people in front of you with your knees. Those seats probably cost those around me hundreds of dollars. It's also well known that many people from those older times had rents and mortgages at much smaller percentages of their monthly income than those today, whereas today they can exceed 50% easily.

golemiprague 4y ago
Melatonic 4y ago
Some things are definitely nicer and some are not. Malls are worse maybe overall but there are some that are also extremely nice now. And is it not also a huge improvement that you can just easily order something from ease at home without having to go to a crowded mall in the first place? The housing thing though for sure is a problem. Then again we are now concentrating more and more in big cities. The one thing people always miss with these calculations is food. We think food is expensive now but the cost of chicken or beef is insanely cheap relative to really what it should be (or what it once was). A steak in the 1920s was probably a real treat.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Malls are just ... dead - there are a few that are kept up and maintained but very, very few new ones being built.

namelessoracle 4y ago

I went to Disney World this year and Disney World in the 90s. Disney World now was not "nicer" than it was then, about the same, all the "enhancements" benefit Disney more than me the customer in my opinion, and in fact many of the attractions looked like they were barely hanging on. But Im more impressed by well made animatronics than video screens (which i can do at home) so maybe Im the wrong person to ask. I do remember the food tasting better and being more affordable in the 90s too. But we can chalk that up to the time difference. Disney seems to be going after DINC people now instead of families with their pricing and overall strategy. Good luck with that.

France_is_bacon 4y ago