“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?
“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.
are you familiar with the purpose of an analogy? here’s the merriam webster: definition of an analogy:
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.
i’m having trouble understanding how
is compatible with your earlier statement:
could you explain that to me?
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?