what is posting in bold-large-type-all-caps considered (besides annoying)?
thefunguy wrote:when will we be notified if awarded low income tickets?
Savannah wrote:It sounds freaky & wrong, so you need to do it.
lemur wrote:BBadger wrote:
I only stated that if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it.
low income applicants can afford to buy low income ticketsYes, 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 ticketYou'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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
BBadger wrote:Please consult the Afterburn Report. This is 2010's. It's not just portapotties.
clocksnmirrors wrote: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.
clocksnmirrors wrote:Here's what stuck out immediately:
Total Expenditures - 2010...........Total Expenditures - 2009..................INCREASE..........PERCENT INCREASE
Payroll 2010..................................Payroll 2009
(sorry about the ... i don't know how do do a table)
junglesmacks wrote: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.
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.
BBadger wrote:Why do I bring up population? Because the expenditures for BM correlates nicely with the population:
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 wrote:Or maybe it's that the 2010 numbers are 142% and 254% of 09's.
Stephendragonfly wrote:@ 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 wrote:BBadger wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest