… Could we maybe focus on all the other things that are ludicrously high? Like hey… rent and/or housing prices? I could see some people being pissed if they thought their home value would go down, but fuck the damn rental companies charging sky-high “market rates” for shitty apartments that haven’t been improved in over a decade.
Utilities, healthcare, debt, education, foreign aid, environment, tech spyware, freedom of the Internet, insurrection. I got depressed and stopped listing things… I am happy for any kind of a win, but I stopped giving ticketmaster money in 2007. This is so overdue, it’s only becoming a priority because Biden thinks he can win over swifties. It’s hard to pretend that this should be a priority, at least free us from cable monopolies first.
Honestly, I care far more about untangling our rat’s nest of NIMBY land use laws. As it stands, it’s literally illegal to build anything denser than sprawling, low-density suburbs on the majority of urban land thanks to NIMBY policies such as restrictive zoning and arbitrary mandatory parking minimums.
Tbh, the whole “corporate ownership of homes” is a red herring. Shuffling around ownership does nothing if you’re not massively expanding supply. And what we need most right now is massively expanded supply.
I read an article recently that was kind of attacking YIMBYism with “when has deregulation ever helped anyone” which I would normally agree with, and if housing was completely deregulated (such as for safety and energy concerns) that would definitely be a problem, but they absolutely didn’t explore the idea they were presenting in any meaningful way other than saying that deregulation by itself hasn’t led to a significant uptick in development, or a significant drop in housing/rent prices in some areas that did it. Because it’s definitely not possible that interest rates or other factors are contributing, certainly not.
Yeah, political opinions based on “regulations always good” or “regulations always bad” are lazy and unhelpful. For one, it ignores that many regulations are written for the express purpose of manufacturing or solidifying a monopoly.
And NIMBY land use policies really are just a textbook example of regulatory capture. Homeowners, who expect their homes to perpetually increase in value, lobby their local governments to manufacture an artificial scarcity of housing so as to drive their property values to the moon. All of this at the expense of renters and new home buyers.
Imo, we should all be trying to form nuanced political opinions where we judge policy on whether it’s good policy or not.
A red herring? Is there or is there not at least 1 housing unit per family that currently exists? My most recent understanding is we have enough quantity, just poor distribution.
The gist of it is that statistics on how many vacant homes exist are highly misleading, for two main reasons:
Many of the homes are not where the demand is. A vacant home in St Louis does nothing to help with a housing shortage in NYC. People want to live in NYC because that’s where the jobs are. A house in St Louis isn’t worth much if you can’t find work there. And statistics consistently show that the most expensive cities have the lowest vacancy rates.
A lot of the homes that are counted as “vacant” aren’t actually just free for the taking like “vacant” would have you believe. In these statistics, “vacant” can mean: 1) a unit that is between tenants, 2) a unit that just finished being built and is awaiting its tenant’s move-in, 3) a unit occupied by someone who doesn’t legally state it as their primary residence (e.g., student housing where the student still lists their parents’ home as their primary address), 4) a unit in horrible disrepair that is unfit for occupation, etc.
Add to this the fact that high vacancy rates are GOOD for you, as it means landlords and sellers have a credible threat of vacancy, meaning they can’t demand ludicrous prices. Reducing vacancy rates is an incredibly anti-consumer, pro-landlord move.
Thank you for taking the time to respond! As per usual, language fails us because “vacant home” sure doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone saying it.
Is NYC (taking your example) prone to low-density zoning? Just looking at induced scarcity vs geographic scarcity, there’s a possibility that everyone that desires to live in NYC just can’t. I’m no expert, obviously.
Say we did remove zoning restrictions and builders could go bananas, what is their incentive to build if they expect vacancy? No one wants to finance new builds if they won’t fill. Developers want low vacancy as much as landlords do. It sounds like zoning changes would be best paired with subsidy programs for individual home buyers or something to allow individuals priority over corporations.
NYC itself doesn’t have much (although it still has some! see image below) low-density zoning, but their suburbs sure do. The city itself also has a lot of other bureaucratic barriers to development that result in it having abysmal housing construction rates.
As for vacancy, yes, the threat of not being able to sell is what stops builders from building too much. For example, it’s the reason no one’s even trying to build the Burj Khalifa in Bakersfield. But if you make it legal and reasonably easy to build, yes, people will build.
In the past half century, by investing in transit and allowing development, the city has added more housing units than the total number of units in New York City. It has remained affordable by becoming the world’s largest city. It has become the world’s largest city by remaining affordable.
Two full-time workers earning Tokyo’s minimum wage can comfortably afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in six of the city’s 23 wards. By contrast, two people working minimum-wage jobs cannot afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in any of the 23 counties in the New York metropolitan area.
…
In Tokyo, by contrast, there is little public or subsidized housing. Instead, the government has focused on making it easy for developers to build. A national zoning law, for example, sharply limits the ability of local governments to impede development. Instead of allowing the people who live in a neighborhood to prevent others from living there, Japan has shifted decision-making to the representatives of the entire population, allowing a better balance between the interests of current residents and of everyone who might live in that place. Small apartment buildings can be built almost anywhere, and larger structures are allowed on a vast majority of urban land. Even in areas designated for offices, homes are permitted. After Tokyo’s office market crashed in the 1990s, developers started building apartments on land they had purchased for office buildings.
I think the key idea is to not have government bureaucrats or existing homeowners or landlords decide whether there’s “enough” housing, but rather let builders determine if there’s unmet demand. If there is unmet demand, they will build if you let them. If there truly is enough housing in a certain city, then you don’t need to tell builders not to build – they’ll simply stop building if they sense there’s not enough demand for it.
To add to this Science Vs did a podcast on the lack of affordable housing. It goes into the NIMBYs, the corporate ownership, local laws that make it hard to build multi-family units, and AirBnB. There are a lot of different factors and it might take time to see the results of fixing it because of this.
I’m not saying that refusing to buy will break up the monopoly, it’s just basic economics, if no one buys due to the price being too high, they will drop the price.
“the price will go down if no one buys the tickets” is true in the same way that the statement “if everyone moves to finland, then no one will live in germany” is true. it doesn’t really mean anything, because you can’t convince everyone to stop buying tickets in the same way that you can’t convince everyone to move to finland.
this sort of problem is why governments regulate things. during the industrial revolution, companies would’ve stopped using child labor if everyone refused to buy from companies that used child labor. but that didn’t happen, so governments took it upon themselves to make child labor illegal.
I’m more than willing to vote with my wallet. If everyone else wants to hold themselves captive that’s their choice, they just shouldn’t pretend that refusing to pay isn’t an option.
Your analogy of uprooting your life to live in another country is a bit of an over exaggeration, we’re talking about missing out on a gig, it’s not akin to starting your life over.
voting with your wallet isn’t really voting though. how are companies supposed to tell the difference between you not buying something because you’re not interested, and you not buying something because of some principled opposition? the other huge problem with the “vote with your wallet idea” is that bigger wallets get more votes. and people with bigger wallets might not care as much about incremental price increases.
Your analogy of uprooting your life to live in another country is a bit of an over exaggeration, we’re talking about missing out on a gig, it’s not akin to starting your life over.
are you familiar with the purpose of an analogy? here’s the merriam webster: definition of an analogy:
a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
is starting your life over different from not going to a concert? yes, but that’s not the point of the analogy. you can say a bunch of “true” if-then statements, but that doesn’t really accomplish anything if the premises are never satisfied. so that’s why i gave an analogy with a premise that’s even harder to satisfy, to illustrate this very point.
Whatever. I’ve seen quite a few gigs that looked good but when I saw the ticket price I thought “fuck that”, it’s really simple. Did my single action cause a price drop? Of course not, but one rain drop doesn’t cause a flood. All we need is for people to stick together but instead we get people like you crying to daddy government about how unfair it is.
If you want to complain about how expensive something is and then still pay it, that’s a you problem.
If you sell cars at a one hundred percent profit margin but everyone refuses to buy, so you then do some market research and realise people will buy at a 50% profit margin, you lower your price and start making money.
See how the government didn’t need to step in there?
If the customers buy your cars at the 100% profit margin, despite mumbles and grumbles, why would you lower the price?
Inb4: But if there was only one car manufacturer, you’d have to pay!?!?
Yes if you needed a car, no one needs to see Taylor Swift live.
i dont really see how this answers my question. it seems like you said “i’m not arguing against government action” and then proceeded to argue against government action.
and aside from that, it seems like what you’re advocating for is this brutal world where companies are always trying to test you to see how much you’ll put up with. and in this world, every single purchase you make should be interpreted as saying “i can take a little more exploitation before i reach my breaking point”. is this really a world you want to live in? how is that better than asking the government to keep companies in line?
You know that other factors exist than just the most basic fundamentals, right? because you’re acting like you don’t.
Things are priced to sell
Things are priced to profit. When the combination of a popular/arguably necessary commodity and little to no competition lets them, companies will exploit that to abuse people for extra profit.
Not buying IS an option
It’s not a GOOD option, though, and not one that anyone should be coerced into rather than reining in abusive corporations that break the law.
no one is forcing you to attend the gig, if the price is too high, then don’t go.
No one is forcing companies to abuse people either. That you think depriving people of entertainment is a better option than upholding the law by doing something about abusively profiteering corporations says a lot about you, none of it good.
We could argue all day. I take a principled stand of refusing to participate in things that I view as unfair.
If you and others continue to contribute to a system that you view as unfair, knowing that you don’t have to, that’s something you have to come to terms with yourself.
I take a principled stand of refusing to participate in things that I view as unfair.
And I’m arguing that it would be more principled to take steps to stop the abuse by holding the abusers accountable than to make it the responsibility of the victims to affect change by depriving themselves needlessly.
If you and others continue to contribute to a system that you view as unfair, knowing that you don’t have to, that’s something you have to come to terms with yourself
Yeah, because “either don’t enjoy music live or it’s your fault” isn’t victim blaming at all, nuh-uh! 🙄
He seems to believe that poor people don’t deserve live music events. Only good for the rich, us poor workers have to keep on working so our bosses can have entertainment.
If you really think that Live Nation needs the first to be toppled… might I introduce you to Nestle? Cargill? Unilever, Bayer. Monsanto. LN might be scummy, and they certainly need to be dealt with, but they’re far from the only thing, and they’re certainly more of a symptom than the problem itself.
I don’t think any of those have 80% of their respective markets though. Not defending any of those companies, just saying it isn’t an open and shut case.
And a lot of stuff with Nestle and Cargill in environmental, so it happens outside of the USA afaik
Yet every single one of those affects every American. Quite possibly everyone across the globe. LN only really affects you if you’re in that industry or go to a concert/events.
Nestle is fucking evil. There’s no other way to put it. They hold so many brands, that they don’t need 80% market share. I doubt very much that any American that wants to seriously boycott them even has a choice.
Same goes with Cargill or Monsanto. Cargill is responsible for a lot of the ag waste generated, being one of the largest producers of beef, and eggs as well as poultry, pork. From producing feed to farms that raise the animals.
Monsanto can literally force farmers to use their seed if any farmer even remotely close also uses their seed. (Ostensibly because gmo seeds are patented and cross pollination violates IP rights).
LN only really affects you if you’re in that industry or go to a concert/events
Yeah, they only affect the business of and most people’s favorite way to enjoy one of the main types of human creative endeavor, no biggie!
Nestle is fucking evil. There’s no other way to put it. They hold so many brands, that they don’t need 80% market share. I doubt very much that any American that wants to seriously boycott them even has a choice.
Absolutely true but also completely beside the point.
Same goes with Cargill or Monsanto. Cargill is responsible for a lot of the ag waste generated, being one of the largest producers of beef, and eggs as well as poultry, pork. From producing feed to farms that raise the animals.
Again, yes, but that ALSO doesn’t make Ticketmaster/Live Nation any better
Monsanto can literally force farmers to use their seed if any farmer even remotely close also uses their seed. (Ostensibly because gmo seeds are patented and cross pollination violates IP rights).
Again true, except Monsanto got bought by Bayer a few years ago. I’ve been unable to find out how much of their evil fuckery they’re still doing under the new name (which is probably because of a deliberate cover job by Bayer), but my guess would be “most, if not all of it”
That STILL doesn’t mean that an effective monopoly should ever be allowed to charge the equivalent of a car for a single concert ticket.
So you’re saying that breaking one of those companies would help fewer people than live nation?
You’re saying that tens of millions of people living with food and housing insecurity is less of a problem than people not being able to afford concert and other tickets?
Explain it to me because you seem to have weird priorities.
So you’re saying that breaking one of those companies would help fewer people than live nation?
Nope.
You’re saying that tens of millions of people living with food and housing insecurity is less of a problem than people not being able to afford concert and other tickets?
Nope
Explain it to me because you seem to have weird priorities.
I’m saying that there’s no need to prioritize in the way that you’re suggesting. It’s not a zero sum game where going after TM/LN means you can’t do anything about even worse companies.
“I like to be a gullible idiot that thinks any politician has my interests in front of mind when they go after little scumbags that affect only a handful of Americans instead of talking larger scumbags that also happen to bribe the fuck out of everyone while fucking everyone over!” - you.
See. I can put words in your mouth, too. Compared to nestle, Monsanto, Cargill or Bayer; Live Nation is positively benign.
You’re calling me selfish? You’re the one lacking the awareness that tens of millions of Americans can’t afford food- a crisis to which every company I’ve mentioned has clearly contributed to.
In the list of issues that need to be fixed, Live Nation is a low priority. Or it should be. It’s a distraction so Biden can pretend to do something about the actual megacorpos that are fucking over the world for a quick buck.
Damn fucking straight it’s a fucking whataboutism.
People cannot afford to go to concerts. Oh fucking boo fucking boo.
People can’t afford their groceries or to pay their rent.
You’re acting like going to a concert is a basic fucking necessity.
In case you’re wondering. Yes I am fucking pissed. If Biden was half as concerned about starving families as he was swifts ticket prices… he might not be in a dead heat with an angry, insurrectionist, rapist, racist, misogynistic grifter whose facing over 90 felony indictments.
Damn fucking straight it’s a fucking whataboutism.
You DO know that those are bad, right? That they’re a logical fallacy and just generally a shitty way to argue a point by not arguing it? Clearly you either don’t know or don’t care.
People cannot afford to go to concerts. Oh fucking boo fucking boo.
Guess what? Music is important to the vast majority of people and, unlike you and me, most people prefer to experience it live.
You’re acting like going to a concert is a basic fucking necessity.
Yeah, enjoying life once in a while is crucial to your mental health. Big surprise, I know 🙄
In case you’re wondering. Yes I am fucking pissed.
Good! Nobody reasonable is saying you shouldn’t be.
If Biden was half as concerned about starving families as he was swifts ticket prices…
There you go again… Two things can be wrong independently of each other. Besides, Biden isn’t even the one trying the case, so there’s no way the two things are a zero sum binary.
he might not be in a dead heat with an angry, insurrectionist, rapist, racist, misogynistic grifter whose facing over 90 felony indictments.
Insisting on being the chief supplier of a genocide certainly doesn’t help either. Anyway, still irrelevant.
Biden, and his FTC has limited resources. He’s expending tax-payer-funded effort. It’s a basic cost-benefit analysis I expect better and more prudent decisions from lowest level of supervisors in my management chain.
It’s a fallacy when they’re otherwise unrelated. They’re not unrelated in that going after one precludes the other. The FTC can only handle so many at once- and it’s Biden’s job to give them the top-level direction.
Biden is unwilling or incapable of doing what’s necessary to protect Americans- actual, breathing Americans.
As for experiencing live music… yeah. I get that. There’s plenty of avenues for experiencing live music that don’t involve live nation. You don’t have to go to the top stars; and chances are solid, you’ll like the experience better.
Biden is the one directing the trade commission to go after them, so yes, it’s about Biden and his priorities. Which apparently, American families are not.
Two things can be independently wrong. But as is the entire point I’ve been trying to make, the resources to solve them are limited. Biden, the FTC, doesn’t have the ability to go after everyone.
Nowhere near as limited as you seem to be imagining.
They’re not unrelated in that going after one precludes the other
That’s just categorically false.
Biden is unwilling or incapable of doing what’s necessary to protect Americans- actual, breathing Americans.
I’d be inclined to agree with you on that, but that’s still besides the point.
There’s plenty of avenues for experiencing live music that don’t involve live nation.
No there isn’t. That’s the problem. Bands below a certain level of popularity only get rare booking at low capacity venues and bands above that level almost invariably depend on TM/LN to book larger venues.
The end result is that no matter whose music you prefer, you’re not likely to get to experience it anywhere near as often as you’d like without going bankrupt, unless you’re rich.
You don’t have to go to the top stars; and chances are solid, you’ll like the experience better.
Yeah, sometimes the “top stars” are the favorites of people and/or their peer group. It’s not a fungible thing where if you’re only into punk, a jazz festival will do in a pinch.
Obviously, good music that’s either free or lower cost is dependent on people’s location. I would argue that there is a significant portion of Americans that could find that music if they tried and were willing to go to shows with artists they aren’t familiar with. I personally go to a great local brewery every Thursday evening that features top quality jazz. Many of the performers are professors and/or students from Berklee College of Music. Free.
I don’t like going to concerts either, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s acceptable that people who want to are charged half their yearly income to go to one.
I was actually saying the opposite, that we need more done about income protections so people can afford stuff. “Given all other evidence” meaning the mountains of information we see about inflation…
The problem with concert tickets isn’t inflation. It’s the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly that controls both the venue and the sales vehicle. They own all the best venues, disallow artists to use any other way to sell tickets that aren’t Ticketmaster, and charge both the artists and the consumers exorbitant fees.
They’re making money on both ends of the transaction because of their monopoly on live music.
I didn’t say high ticket prices was inflation. I was explaining my original “evidence” comment was to reflect inflation not “don’t be poor” and now I’m being critiqued for not re-writing the original story in the comments like people seem to want.
I hate Ticketmaster as much as anyone, and think the DOJ should absolutely pursue them, but the fact people can’t afford ticket prices is also because people are stretched financially more than ever before, which is a much bigger issue than just
I’m going to assume someone will now down vote me for not predicting some other third assumption that they will jump to. Great!
My problem isn’t the ticket prices - because the groups I go see aren’t hugely popular I’ve never paid more than $30 for a ticket - but the way it hurts artists. Having one conglomerate controlling the ticket sales and the venues means artists have less negotiating power. With the collapse of music sales, most artists make most of their money from touring, and getting screwed by LiveNation means fewer bands touring.
Add comment