Please Help Preserve the Low Income Ticket Program

[48_love]

scare quotes? lol

what is posting in bold-large-type-all-caps considered (besides annoying)?

[inthecolumbiagorge]

All caps generally signifies yelling in text and email.

[lemur]

what is posting in bold-large-type-all-caps considered (besides annoying)?

THAT WAS NOT BOLD TYPE. IT WAS JUST BIG

THIS IS WHAT BOLD TYPE LOOKS LIKE

[48_love]

lol, thanks. in fairness ... the small type shit is annoying, too.

i've always felt that the quotes provided 'emphasis' that could help interpret meaning and facilitate communication, but wikipedia has spoken. sounds like i need to finish my entry on laziness of posts made using large and/or small text, though.

[theCryptofishist]

I do a lot of indication with the small and large type. Typically, small type is either something that I feel shows I am petty, or an aside to people on the board who know me and would care about what I have to say, but it isn't particularly pertinent...

[thefunguy]

when will we be notified if awarded low income tickets?

[lemur]

when will we be notified if awarded low income tickets?

Applications will be accepted until we run out of tickets or Monday, May 1, 2012, whichever comes first. Those awarded tickets will be notified within six (6) weeks of applying. The application link will be removed when we have run out of Low Income Tickets.

source: http://tickets.burningman.com/


It can take up to six weeks for us to review applications so if you have received a copy of your application via email, please wait a full six weeks before contacting us about your application.

source: http://tickets2.burningman.com/faq.php#lowincome

[junglesmacks]

See.. and right here... this is exactly what is wrong with the low income ticketing program as specifically called out by BBadger. You have someone that has cried and cried about how poor they are and just "have to have" a low income ticket to attend.. so they game the system.. and yet magically cough up enough for a top tier, camp allotted ticket. If that's not the case then excuse me.. but.. it sure smells that way.. and seems to illustrate a point.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33105&p=815208#p815208


I'm itching to comment on the 10k ticket allotments and how it obviously turned into cronyism vs. truly "preserving the fabric of Burning Man" as was to be expected, but I'll refrain.

*oops*

[BBadger]

I only stated that if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it.

low income applicants can afford to buy low income tickets

Yes, I believe that it is financially irresponsible to go on this BM luxury vacation if the difference between going and not going is the price difference between a ticket purchased via the normal sale or via the low-income program. You're stretching yourself too thin.

low income applicants arent stretching themselves too thin, they can afford to go on a BM luxury vacation if they have a low income ticket

You're shouldn't go ("shouldn't", for those who don't understand, meaning it is unwise in your financial situation). If this is "financial superiority" as asserted below, then so be it.

spending money to go to burning man is not unwise for low income ticket applicants because they can afford to go if they have a low income ticket

Did you even read what was posted? That is what I'm calling into question here: is $80 really the difference between going and not going? I really don't think so in the vast supermajority of cases here. Again, this is why I find the program's intended only-resort purpose very doubtful.

Nope, never said the LLC shouldn't decide to sell tickets for whatever price they want. It's a business, and if they see that it's working, or are simply testing it, so be it. Only that I don't think the program is really that effective for what it is, and I doubt its value.

you didnt say it but youve made a case for it not needing to exist. such as saying you dont think that it is effective and you doubt its value

Am I hearing an echo on my own words? So what if I've made a case for it not needing to exist. I can make a case for vegans eating meat. So what?

Am I acting with "financial superiority" in this context because I think that people should save up their money if they want a luxury good that badly, and that stretching your finances to the limits for a vacation is financially irresponsible?

they can afford to go, using a low income ticket that they have saved up for. Your comments seem to imply they shouldnt be allowed to save up for a low income ticket.

Shouldn't be allowed to? What? They can save up for whatever the hell they want to.

Your comments claiming you might be able to apply to the low income program, but havnt, because you were able to save up more money, reeks of if-i-can-do-it-why-cant-they bootstraps type superiority mentality. characterizing people who can afford to go to burning man using money they saved up for to go while using a low income ticket as financially irresponsible again reeks of more financial superiority.

"Reeks" of expecting people to be able to save up their money? I'll take that as a compliment. Yeah, I guess I do expect people to be able to do it, especially for a luxury vacation.

low income ticket holders are financially responsible and they can afford to go to a luxury burning man vacation using a low income ticket they saved up for.

What deluded impression of my words do you really have? Am I damning people for saving up money for a specific price point? No I am not. Never. Go back to remedial reading comprehension, because those are not the words written.

What is written, is that I expect people to save up for the luxuries they want, and that I find the low-income program ineffective, even for those people who try to benefit from it now. I also think--and maybe this is where you get this "financial superiority" nonsense--that $80 in savings over a T1 ticket is indeed a very slim, financially irresponsible margin to go on a trip with. However, I feel that deal-making case is very rare, and more people fit into tattoogoddess's case where the low-income program is a second chance at a range of cheaper tickets.

Hell, I could just as easily apply to this low-income program with the same qualifications as most of the applicants. I don't because I save my discretionary income to attend, and for other things.

you seem to be implying low income ticket applicants do not save their discretionary income and that they spend it on other things.

That was not related to that, but to your assertion that I cast "disdain" because others do not share my financial means (to be explicit: income level).

Do I want a pat on the back? No I don't. Do I expect the same of others? Yes I do.

you seem to be implying that low income ticket applicants want a pat on the back. you also seem to be implying again that low income ticket applicants do not do as you do, by saving discretionary income to attend the event.

Reading comprehension Lemur. There are no words or implications for that between the lines. No, I'm not implying that low-income applicants who save their money think they deserve a pat on the back. I said that I don't expect a pat on the back for what I expect of myself and others.

financial superiority is not synonymous with rich. as you said earlier, you make the case for being able to apply for a low income ticket but suggest that you dont because you save money...implying that low income applicants havnt saved their money.. And again in this block of text you imply that low income applicants do not work for what they have and do not save money to buy what they want..

Nope, not implying that, and in fact encouraging people to save their money for their luxury vacation. I'm saying I don't want to subsidize luxuries, and that the amount subsidized is extremely rarely a deal-making amount. Oh yes, and I will say that if that $80 is the difference between go and not go, yes, that is stretching things too thin; you can call that "financial superiority" if that's somehow part of the definition in your book. I think I said that already.

(... more of the same ...)

such use of scare quotes is intellectually dishonest. one neednt use scare quotes to affirm their disagreement with someone else. use of scare quotes only serves as a way to discredit someone or something without doing it in words... in short, it is lazy

Yeah, whatever. It's a perfectly valid rhetorical device that carries exactly the meaning I wish to convey. Good to put a name to it though. Maybe you meant "sneer quotes" too?

[phoenix808]

thanks for posting this. im anxiously awaiting a yay or nay! well, i havent made a dime in the last 60 days! ive been looking for work non stop. im really hoping this low income thing works in my favor this year. i did go into the lottery at 240, because i do believe in preserving this program for people that are in situations like the one i got in! i knew the chances were slim and wanted to at least try. so now i got the news that david best is doing the temple this year. this will be my second burn! i know the universe will get me there, im just waiting for that email to drop. too bad people take advantage of this. at least i gave an honest application that was from the heart.

[clocksnmirrors]

Please consult the Afterburn Report. This is 2010's. It's not just portapotties.

Ok so I looked at the Afterburn Report. Here's what stuck out immediately:

Total Expenditures - 2010...........Total Expenditures - 2009..................INCREASE..........PERCENT INCREASE
17,515,083....................................12,317,000............................5,198,083..................142

Payroll 2010..................................Payroll 2009
7,283,000.......................................2,858,000............................4,425,000..................254

(sorry about the ... i don't know how do do a table)

Clearly it's not just portapotties. In fact, a substantial portion is payroll, which increased by over 150% in one year. In fact, almost all of the 5 million dollar increase from 2009 to 2010 was payroll.

What gives?

[trilobyte]

I'd suggest reading news regarding both Burning Man and the Burning Man Project during the 2010-2011 window. You may also care to check out either the Politics & Philosophy or Open Discussion boards for a number of different threads on the subject.

[BBadger]

Clearly it's not just portapotties. In fact, a substantial portion is payroll, which increased by over 150% in one year. In fact, almost all of the 5 million dollar increase from 2009 to 2010 was payroll.

What gives?

Though this does not explain away everything, 2009 was an anomalous year. The population dropped to 43,000 from nearly 50,000 due to (it is assumed) the housing bubble crash. In 2010, the population returned to its normal trend, and 2011 also reflected the "natural growth" of Burning Man.

Why do I bring up population? Because the expenditures for BM correlates nicely with the population:

population_and_expenditures.png

Comparing 2009 to 2010 is not as meaningful as comparing with the trend from previous years. Still, as you noted, the amount of money going to payroll more than doubles the absolute amount that the trend predicts. This increase in payroll may be in part to paid staff taking over the roles previously assigned to independent contractors. In 2007, payroll and independent contractor costs were $2,802,000 and $1,628,000 respectively; 2008, $3,134,000 and $1,332,000; 2009, $2,858,000 and $161,000; and 2010 $7,283,000 and $231,783. 2010's payroll is, however, $2 million or so more than the previous payroll + contractor cost trend. What that extra $2 million or so is going towards I have no idea; maybe there were less volunteers able to dedicate their time.

[theCryptofishist]

Here's what stuck out immediately:

Total Expenditures - 2010...........Total Expenditures - 2009..................INCREASE..........PERCENT INCREASE
17,515,083....................................12,317,000............................5,198,083..................142
Payroll 2010..................................Payroll 2009
7,283,000.......................................2,858,000............................4,425,000..................254
(sorry about the ... i don't know how do do a table)

Okay. You are also having a math problem. 12,371,000 + (142 * 12,371,000) = 2,018,4240 not 17 and a half thousand.
I believe the values of percent increase are 42% and 154%. Or maybe it's that the 2010 numbers are 142% and 254% of 09's.

Also, after the 2010 event, or maybe even before it, we heard that they were moving headquarters to a larger space in a different location. To me that sounds like an increase in the number of people employed. And I believe that the llc pays the local living wage--not cheap in the city.

[incubus_pantomime]

See.. and right here... this is exactly what is wrong with the low income ticketing program as specifically called out by BBadger. You have someone that has cried and cried about how poor they are and just "have to have" a low income ticket to attend.. so they game the system.. and yet magically cough up enough for a top tier, camp allotted ticket. If that's not the case then excuse me.. but.. it sure smells that way.. and seems to illustrate a point.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33105&p=815208#p815208


I'm itching to comment on the 10k ticket allotments and how it obviously turned into cronyism vs. truly "preserving the fabric of Burning Man" as was to be expected, but I'll refrain.

*oops*

THIS.

Thank you, junglesmacks. I appreciate you for saying this.

[Stephendragonfly]

@ Junglesmacks,
I believe that the case you sighted, and linked, has more to do with the desperation of some people to get to the event than with deficiencies in the low income program itself. I sincerely hope that the people reviewing the low income ticket applications do a good and thorough job of eliminating those people who applied just because they didn't get tickets in the lottery.

[clocksnmirrors]

Why do I bring up population? Because the expenditures for BM correlates nicely with the population:

population_and_expenditures.png

Comparing 2009 to 2010 is not as meaningful as comparing with the trend from previous years. Still, as you noted, the amount of money going to payroll more than doubles the absolute amount that the trend predicts. This increase in payroll may be in part to paid staff taking over the roles previously assigned to independent contractors. In 2007, payroll and independent contractor costs were $2,802,000 and $1,628,000 respectively; 2008, $3,134,000 and $1,332,000; 2009, $2,858,000 and $161,000; and 2010 $7,283,000 and $231,783. 2010's payroll is, however, $2 million or so more than the previous payroll + contractor cost trend. What that extra $2 million or so is going towards I have no idea; maybe there were less volunteers able to dedicate their time.

I appreciate the response. And I'm really happy to see the graph. It illustrates pretty clearly that the 2010 increase in payroll is WAY out of line with the trend from the years prior AND out of line for the population trend (both are nearly linear).

In fact, the biggest change year over year next to '09-'10 is +$597 from '06-'07. Even if that increase had held steady from '07 on, we'd only be looking at $4.6 million.

Instead the increase from '09-'10 is almost double all the increases for all the years after '06 combined.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. To me this does not add up to a correlation with population.

[clocksnmirrors]

Or maybe it's that the 2010 numbers are 142% and 254% of 09's.

This.

I had the feeling I wasn't expressing it correctly.

[BBadger]

@ Junglesmacks,
I believe that the case you sighted, and linked, has more to do with the desperation of some people to get to the event than with deficiencies in the low income program itself. I sincerely hope that the people reviewing the low income ticket applications do a good and thorough job of eliminating those people who applied just because they didn't get tickets in the lottery.

Actually, it is a deficiency with the program itself if it can be abused as a means to increase ones probability to attend the event under any circumstances. The low-income program ought to have occurred at the same time as the lottery so that people had theoretically one choice: a ticket through the lottery, or a ticket through the low-income program. The low-income program is specifically made for people who cannot afford any tier of the normal lottery system--not some secondary means to obtain a ticket if the lottery did not fall through. Whether this is reasonable is addressed earlier.

Instead the increase from '09-'10 is almost double all the increases for all the years after '06 combined.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. To me this does not add up to a correlation with population.

Yes, it is a much larger increase than before. It may have to do with what theCryptofishist mentioned with moving the offices and paying the local living wage. I also think it might have to do with the expiration of the 5-year BLM permit and the need for staff to address that problem among other transitions. BMOrg wasn't able to secure a longer-term permit for 2011, and perhaps they foresaw some of the problems with ticket scarcity that would occur without the ability for BM's population to grow. It seems unstable growth functions and their consequences are a common thing these days.

[theCryptofishist]

It's hard to know it means as an isolated number, things may be clearer when we see last year's numbers. And there may be more people working on the transition to non-profit status as well...

[pink]

There are a lot of situations where growth doesn't result in a smooth line of increased expenses, but rather a step progression. The example we got in biz school was where growth resulted in the need to build a new factory once growth in sales reached a certain point. We are certainly seeing a lot of positions with the Bmorg advertised. Moving expenses in-house away from independent contactors, which is seen in the reports, is another factor.