No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
The top comments seem to have a lot of people from the US seem to be ignoring the rest of the world exists and screaming Reagan (the US president from 1981-1989). I honestly don't know how accurate that is but it is obviously not nuanced and probably biased by anti-Trump sentiment
I'm not sure how accurate this article is either but it mentions the salary cap for soccer in England being removed in 1960 and that leading to a rapid increase in wages there.
https://www.salaryleaks.com/blogs/average-salary-premier-league-history
A quick scan of the internet led me to this chart that compares top soccer players to median income in (for some reason) the US
From: https://www.expensivity.com/soccer-salary-inflation/
Here's another chart from the same article for how many times a US families income a top international player makes (and like the England article the 60s look to be exponential growth, then noise in the 70s then pretty clear from the 80s):
A lot of that analysis has space for biases but I'm pretty sure that modern large sports wages predate Reagan but also that the people mentioning rich athletes in Roman times are a bit off too
I have to admit that, without wanting to defend absurd wages for anyone, there's a pretty decent explanation in the case of athletes. If you're one of the top ten boxers in the world, there are tens (hundreds?) of millions of people that want to see your matches. It's not unreasonable to ask for some compensation for providing entertainment, so let's say each viewer is paying 1 USD / match. After paying the costs of setting up the match, you're still left with millions of dollars per match.
Specially in the case of top-level athletes, we're in a situation where very may people want to see very few people provide entertainment. Even if they take a very low price, they're still going to be making buckets of money. I don't really think that would be unfair, provided they actually charged some small amount. What irritates me is that the sports associations have decided to charge absurd amounts to squeeze people fore mine to make even more. That should definitely be illegal.
I split out my reply to this part because it's obvious it will be downvoted heavily in Lemmy
I get the sentiment but how does that effectively work?
Running the economics framing: Prices act to lower consumers willing to pay so if there is a limited resource, like a ticket, then its a way to filter out until you have how much it's worth.
That's mostly influenced by how keen fans are, how many fans there are, and how rich they are.
You can use a lottery alone or in conjunction but that usually leads to a black market with expensive tickets too. It seems pretty reasonable to me to have a lottery for some of the tickets to be in a lottery, but it also seems to not work that well practically.
It seems like for a lot of things time is used as a commodity for at least some tickets, like waiting in line overnight or first to load the page. Both don't really stop rich people, and have their other issues like realistically rewarding luck for if you hit refresh at the right moment without the server dying.
And it seems like some tickets go out to fan groups or individuals that have proven the care about the event like some trivia questions.
Looking at that, I'm just not intelligent enough to know how you really avoid at least a decent number of the tickets being expensive for some of the popular events.
I think this has gotten worse over time and I wonder how much of that is because we can move so much more freely than before. Or if there is another mechanism. Or if I'm just flat wrong here
Either way, I'm not sure how you make that substantially better
With modern tv/streaming, tickets aren't a limited resource anymore, in the sense that by far most of the viewers are not in place live.
Sure, you could price live tickets following "normal" market rules, since you still have the practical limitation regarding the number of people living in reasonable distance from the stadium. The idea of using pricing to regulate demand/consumption for streaming services doesn't really make sense the same way, since the marginal cost of another viewer is essentially zero.
Yeah, great point and a big oversight of mine when I replied. Since I periodically have a single soccer game I want to watch and only really expensive options I should know better.
I wonder why. I think one of the things stopping prices dropping there is agreement that basically remove competitors.
Yeah, some of the mechanisms the push the wage higher are pretty reasonable in isolation. I personally would love to see higher taxes on people earning these huge amounts (so CEOs etc) but I think it's really unlikely to happen or be effective until we have stronger global treaties and I also don't understand how you really do it with incomes that can be exponential (giving the benefit of the doubt: users / fans) since that somewhat neutralises that starts hitting brackets with a lot of nines.