Here's the actual data: https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics https://blackrockcitycensus.org/sociodemo#demographics 24.3% make more than $15

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.