4 ms·

> If I want to go to an event bad enough, I can pay more and get a ticket. You might be able to, but lots of people can't afford to do that. You seem to be ass

> If I want to go to an event bad enough, I can pay more and get a ticket. You might be able to, but lots of people can't afford to do that. You seem to be assuming that the people who want to go the most will pay the most, thus leading to meritocratic distribution of tickets. In reality, it will just skew concert attendance towards the wealthy who can afford to pay even if they're not that fussed about going.

qeternity 4y ago
Don’t shoot the messenger but this is the point. In the absence of a better metric, price is the least worst proxy for “who wants to go the most”. The reality is you have a limited supply good that needs allocating. There are a number of systems by which this can occur, but price is the one which has worked best throughout human history. Also it’s been established the artists are often hiding behind scalpers to sell tickets at true market prices, whilst appearing to sell them at “fair” prices.
unpopular42 4y ago
Now, why is that a bad thing? Not everyone can live in the best location, not everyone can drive the best car, not everyone can attend the best concert. There is no other way when many people want something that is in limited supply - someone will be left out. Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier, so why giving tickets in exchange for that is less fair than giving tickets to the one who clicked first?
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier Yeah right. How many services has Elon Musk's toddler given to others, and how much have you?
  - unpopular42 4y ago
    He hasn't. His father has -- obviously.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      Quite a poor proxy then if he gets credit for all the good works his dad's done - enough that you could work every hour for the rest of your life and never even come close to him.
      - unpopular42 4y ago
        Why is it a poor proxy though? His father provided those services and passed some of the resulting wealth to his son. The quality of the proxy doesn't change depending on who's spending. Whatever the son spends, the father can't spend anymore. Note that one of the strong drivers making people take risks, work shitty jobs, and otherwise do things that others don't want to do is exactly this -- providing for their families.
        cool_dude85 4y ago
        What could this mean: "Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier" if not a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier... by the holder of the wealth? If I can be wealthy without providing others services, then my wealth is certainly a poor proxy for how many services I have provided.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > Now, why is that a bad thing? > Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier It's a bad thing because wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others. And because while someone will always be left out, it's much better if it's not the same people always getting left out. Being able to click first is more accessible to more people, although I'd argue it isn't great either, and some kind of random lottery system might be better.
  - unpopular42 4y ago
    > wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others It's the best we have though. Otherwise, should we also randomly distribute best homes, or whatever else is in limited supply?
  - pc86 4y ago
    > wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others Isn't it better than pure luck, even if luck plays a part in wealth?
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    Maybe we can convince Sotheby's to do a click first auction. I'd like to own a Monet someday, and I feel I'm always getting left out at traditional art auctions.
- bocytron 4y ago
  > Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier Source? I don't think the research agree with that statement.
  - unpopular42 4y ago
    Which research do you mean? Please point, thanks
tedunangst 4y ago
Looking forward to Ticketmaster adding a "Describe your reasons for wanting to attend this concert in 500 words" text field to their order form, and then the evolution of autocomplete AIs to write the best essays.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Or... they could just not allow resale above face value. That alone would wipe out everyone who doesn't want to go but wants to resell for a profit. The rest works itself out within the margin of error... if you want the tickets be there at opening. And before someone else replies in bad faith like the comment I'm replying to did... maybe along the lines of "well what if your internet cuts out!!! or you get hit by a bus at that moment!!!": that's the margin of error. You can't have a perfect meritocracy but you can have a better one.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    > if you want the tickets be there at opening. So now instead of discriminating against people who don’t have enough money, now you are discriminating against people with busy lives who can’t be there right when the tickets go on sale. Also, you would still end up with people who were there right when the tickets go on sale and still didn’t get any. I don’t think your method is any more of a meritocracy.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I spent half the comment trying to head off low-effort bad faith replies and yet here we are... If you can't figure out how biasing sales towards people who want to go to a concert is more meritorious than allowing people who want to resell for more than face in a context where "merit" is literally "wanting to see the show", you need to take a long hard sit and really think this one out. You cannot have perfect system in real life, but you can move away from enabling people with no interest at all in the event to just those who at least had a cursory enough interest when they're not profiting.
  - tedunangst 4y ago
FerociousTimes 4y ago
Rich people buying tickets to be seated in the peanut gallery section?? Come on, let's get real here!

qeternity 4y ago

Don’t shoot the messenger but this is the point. In the absence of a better metric, price is the least worst proxy for “who wants to go the most”. The reality is you have a limited supply good that needs allocating. There are a number of systems by which this can occur, but price is the one which has worked best throughout human history. Also it’s been established the artists are often hiding behind scalpers to sell tickets at true market prices, whilst appearing to sell them at “fair” prices.

unpopular42 4y ago

Now, why is that a bad thing? Not everyone can live in the best location, not everyone can drive the best car, not everyone can attend the best concert. There is no other way when many people want something that is in limited supply - someone will be left out. Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier, so why giving tickets in exchange for that is less fair than giving tickets to the one who clicked first?

cool_dude85 4y ago
>Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier Yeah right. How many services has Elon Musk's toddler given to others, and how much have you?
- unpopular42 4y ago
  He hasn't. His father has -- obviously.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Quite a poor proxy then if he gets credit for all the good works his dad's done - enough that you could work every hour for the rest of your life and never even come close to him.
    - unpopular42 4y ago
      Why is it a poor proxy though? His father provided those services and passed some of the resulting wealth to his son. The quality of the proxy doesn't change depending on who's spending. Whatever the son spends, the father can't spend anymore. Note that one of the strong drivers making people take risks, work shitty jobs, and otherwise do things that others don't want to do is exactly this -- providing for their families.
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        What could this mean: "Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier" if not a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier... by the holder of the wealth? If I can be wealthy without providing others services, then my wealth is certainly a poor proxy for how many services I have provided.
nicoburns 4y ago
> Now, why is that a bad thing? > Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier It's a bad thing because wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others. And because while someone will always be left out, it's much better if it's not the same people always getting left out. Being able to click first is more accessible to more people, although I'd argue it isn't great either, and some kind of random lottery system might be better.
- unpopular42 4y ago
  > wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others It's the best we have though. Otherwise, should we also randomly distribute best homes, or whatever else is in limited supply?
- pc86 4y ago
  > wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others Isn't it better than pure luck, even if luck plays a part in wealth?
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Maybe we can convince Sotheby's to do a click first auction. I'd like to own a Monet someday, and I feel I'm always getting left out at traditional art auctions.
bocytron 4y ago
> Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier Source? I don't think the research agree with that statement.
- unpopular42 4y ago
  Which research do you mean? Please point, thanks

tedunangst 4y ago

Looking forward to Ticketmaster adding a "Describe your reasons for wanting to attend this concert in 500 words" text field to their order form, and then the evolution of autocomplete AIs to write the best essays.

BoorishBears 4y ago
Or... they could just not allow resale above face value. That alone would wipe out everyone who doesn't want to go but wants to resell for a profit. The rest works itself out within the margin of error... if you want the tickets be there at opening. And before someone else replies in bad faith like the comment I'm replying to did... maybe along the lines of "well what if your internet cuts out!!! or you get hit by a bus at that moment!!!": that's the margin of error. You can't have a perfect meritocracy but you can have a better one.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > if you want the tickets be there at opening. So now instead of discriminating against people who don’t have enough money, now you are discriminating against people with busy lives who can’t be there right when the tickets go on sale. Also, you would still end up with people who were there right when the tickets go on sale and still didn’t get any. I don’t think your method is any more of a meritocracy.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I spent half the comment trying to head off low-effort bad faith replies and yet here we are... If you can't figure out how biasing sales towards people who want to go to a concert is more meritorious than allowing people who want to resell for more than face in a context where "merit" is literally "wanting to see the show", you need to take a long hard sit and really think this one out. You cannot have perfect system in real life, but you can move away from enabling people with no interest at all in the event to just those who at least had a cursory enough interest when they're not profiting.
- tedunangst 4y ago

FerociousTimes 4y ago

Rich people buying tickets to be seated in the peanut gallery section?? Come on, let's get real here!