3 ms·

I agree with you. On the other hand, changing founding principles should be a very deliberate process, or else they don't mean very much. In any case I don't t

I agree with you. On the other hand, changing founding principles should be a very deliberate process, or else they don't mean very much. In any case I don't think the criticism is generally as well-founded as what you've laid out here. In fact I'm pretty sure that most casual observers do not realize that the exclusivity in practice stems from inclusivity in principle. Also the median income of participants was around $70k last I checked, so also the perception is pretty out of whack.

yieldcrv 3y ago
check again > https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demographics-18330903.php#:~:text=A%20line%20chart%20shows%20the,%24300%2C000%20section%20at%20around%2015%25 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demo.... not specifically about median but over 40% report $100k-$299k, 30% below that. And even if it was $70k, for an individual that's really much higher than the national, as the national household income is $70k which is for a family of 4, taking anybody's $70k income and dividing that up for more budgeting constraints. the perception isn't out of whack, based on that quip. its fine that some people save up for that one event, its also a place of privilege that self selects who would participate despite the intention and difficulty necessary to do so, extremely ironic for the 1 festival (or whatever word that doesn't trigger burners) that leads with how inclusive it is, when its actually not more inclusive than corporate festivals, and actually pretty hard to tap into an existing camp, and more challenging to make your own new camp. If they dropped some of those cringy principles it would be less of a target.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  Here's the actual data: https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics 24.3% make more than $150k And of course participants make more than the national average. There's a huge proportion of attendees coming from the SF Bay Area (38.1% from California -- Burning Man started on Baker Beach in SF), where $150k is not particularly high. Besides that, the poorest Americans simply cannot afford to attend festivals. That doesn't have anything to do with Burning Man. Inclusivity means "everyone is welcome", it doesn't imply that you can afford the trip or time away from work. Even if the event tickets were $0, that would be the case. The org does offer reduced cost tickets to people with financial need, which is pretty much the limit of what can be done in practice. How is that ironic? Anyway: if Burning Man is associated with rich, privileged people in the popular imagination and, say, High Sierra Music Festival is not, then yes, that's out of whack. And I'm doubtful that many Americans think of even $300k as "rich"? Comfortable, yes; but not upper-class (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make more than that). That kind of income usually comes from a salary, i.e., people in that income range still have to work. Generally the current focus of public scorn is billionaires or at least multi-millionaires, who are many orders of magnitude beyond.

yieldcrv 3y ago

check again > https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demographics-18330903.php#:~:text=A%20line%20chart%20shows%20the,%24300%2C000%20section%20at%20around%2015%25 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/burning-man-demo.... not specifically about median but over 40% report $100k-$299k, 30% below that. And even if it was $70k, for an individual that's really much higher than the national, as the national household income is $70k which is for a family of 4, taking anybody's $70k income and dividing that up for more budgeting constraints. the perception isn't out of whack, based on that quip. its fine that some people save up for that one event, its also a place of privilege that self selects who would participate despite the intention and difficulty necessary to do so, extremely ironic for the 1 festival (or whatever word that doesn't trigger burners) that leads with how inclusive it is, when its actually not more inclusive than corporate festivals, and actually pretty hard to tap into an existing camp, and more challenging to make your own new camp. If they dropped some of those cringy principles it would be less of a target.

nwiswell 3y ago
Here's the actual data: https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics 24.3% make more than $150k And of course participants make more than the national average. There's a huge proportion of attendees coming from the SF Bay Area (38.1% from California -- Burning Man started on Baker Beach in SF), where $150k is not particularly high. Besides that, the poorest Americans simply cannot afford to attend festivals. That doesn't have anything to do with Burning Man. Inclusivity means "everyone is welcome", it doesn't imply that you can afford the trip or time away from work. Even if the event tickets were $0, that would be the case. The org does offer reduced cost tickets to people with financial need, which is pretty much the limit of what can be done in practice. How is that ironic? Anyway: if Burning Man is associated with rich, privileged people in the popular imagination and, say, High Sierra Music Festival is not, then yes, that's out of whack. And I'm doubtful that many Americans think of even $300k as "rich"? Comfortable, yes; but not upper-class (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make more than that). That kind of income usually comes from a salary, i.e., people in that income range still have to work. Generally the current focus of public scorn is billionaires or at least multi-millionaires, who are many orders of magnitude beyond.