Daniel Currell, a management consultant, has a fascinating and depressing op-ed up at the New York Times site [gift link!] about how Disney’s theme parks have become virtually unaffordable for the average American, indeed even the average middle class American. He writes in part,
…We all judge our well-being against something, typically our past and our peers. Through either of those lenses, the Disney parks — and many similar institutions of American culture — may offer a piece of the puzzle. Compared with the past, a Disney trip is more expensive, to be sure, but perhaps more important, it feels much more expensive, because at every turn one is being invited to level up and spend more. Thanks to social media, we can now see the experiences that divide us. Go to Instagram and search for #Club33, the invitation-only clubs hidden within Disney properties. What you see there will not make you feel a kinship with your fellow man, unless you are one of the very few invited in. America’s 20th century was a fortunate moment when we could rely on companies like Disney to deliver rich and unifying elements of our culture. Walt Disney hoped that his audience would have “no racial, national, political, religious or social differences”; he wanted to appeal to everyone, in no small part because appealing to everyone was profitable. It was a time when big institutions were trusted, and the culture they created was shared by nearly all Americans…The market, and increasingly the culture, is dominated by the affluent. And technology is enabling companies to see these previously invisible class divides and act on them. Based on what we earn, we see different ads, stand in different lines, eat different food, stay in different hotels, watch the parade from different sections and on and on. What’s profitable today is not unification. It’s segmentation.
The article explains that a trip to Disneyland or Walt Disney World is now likely to cost a family of four a base cost of $700 on ride tickets alone, plus admission costs. The families who can afford it pay roughly $90 to get front-of-the-line access to a single premier ride, otherwise a less affluent family wait up to an hour waiting to get on. It follows the travails of one middle class family on the dream trip to Disney World it had saved up for over several years. Seven days in Orlando cost about $8,000 for two adults and three children, not counting travel and lodging at an off-site hotel. That was 15% of what the family earned year after taxes, and it was still an inferior experience to what the “elite” could pay for.
This was not what Walt Disney was trying to accomplish with his art and cultural barrage, and it isn’t only Disney that is making economic, greed-based decisions that are dividing and weakening the U.S.’s social connective tissue. Already whole chunks of what were once considered democratizing social experiences have become almost entirely elite activities. Ballet, concerts and opera went that way long ago: go to the Kennedy Center Opera House and count the black faces: you probably won’t need ten fingers. Single tickets to these performances will cost more than a hundred bucks. Children, who need to be introduced to such genres early if they are going to appreciate them, are priced out except for those in wealth families.
Lately live theater generally has become unaffordable except for the rich or irresponsible. I checked my family’s old stomping ground for Broadway touring companies, the Colonial Theater in Boston, where I saw “The Music Man” as an eight-year-old. We didn’t have the best seats (which today cost $240 each), but we didn’t have the worst seats either, the back of the balcony where you can’t make out the faces of the performers. Those are $40 per now, meaning that a family of four would pay $120 just to kind of feel like they were seeing a professional musical.
Small professional theaters? When I ran the American Century Theater ten years ago, our policy was to keep prices below $20 and to let children under 18 in for free so families of less than extravagant means could see high quality professional theater. Now many of our competitors then are charging over a hundred bucks for a ticket. Live theater and musicals are rapidly going the way of ballet, the philharmonic and opera,
So, depressingly, are professional sports. I used to go to Boston Red Sox games on a whim as a teen, and didn’t even have to sit in the bleachers, which cost just fifty cents. I could pay half price for grandstand general admission, then $1.50. Some of those seats I sat in for that price now cost over $150, and yes, that is way over the inflation rate. All the other professional sports are similar or worse.
For me, a kid from the suburbs whose dad was in mid-level management and who never earned six figures in his career, my trips to Fenway Park were some of the most formative experiences of my life—interacting with fans, taking in the excitement, witnessing a live event. So was live theater: one memorable performance I saw as a child is the inspiration for a project I am involved in right now.
Greedy owners of these once shared basic cultural experiences are making them unavailable to most of the public, with adverse consequences to our society that are as immeasurable as they are, I believe, disastrous. We will be more divided, distant, alienated, ignorant, narrow and unable to communicate with and understand one another than ever before. It will ultimately be bad for the very businesses and enterprises now pushing us toward that fate.
In “Jurassic Park,” the “blood-sucking lawyer” (who is eventually eaten by a tyrannosaurus) enthuses, after seeing one of the new park’s dinosaurs, “And we can charge whatever we want, and people will pay it!” Hammond, the park’s creator (Richard Attenborough), admonishes him, saying that Jurassic Park will not only be “for the super-rich.” The lawyer shrugs, “We can have a coupon day, or something.”
This is how a national culture starves itself. Jurassic Park self-destructed; our real cultural institutions are heading to the same fate by making themselves unavailable, and thus irrelevant, to the majority of the population. Uncle Walt had the right idea: all Americans should not only should have a chance to make their dreams come true, but they should also be given the raw materials that stimulate those dreams.
Without a vibrant shared culture that doesn’t require “coupon days,” this is becoming impossible.
Ethics Alarms 
As a young teen in nyc I was able to attend Broadway matinees, baseball games and Radio City. As a young soldier stationed in San Francisco circa 1973; I was able to have season tickets for the theater and opera. These cultural experiences are now unavailable for the youth.
…and not only the youth.
Wait… isn’t the concentration of wealth among the elite and the ever increasing wealth disparity a leftist talking point promoted by socialist demons like Bernie?
If people wanted to have luxuries like a family trip to a ball game they should just work more overtime, or add a second job. Having fewer children would be wise, too.
Certainly they shouldn’t unionize (Happy Labor Day!) to gain negotiating power to increase wages, because that is incompatible with maximizing top management stock options (excuse, me—I meant shareholder! of course they are doing it for the shareholder!–) profits.
Isn’t greed a central virtue of corporate America? We are meant to ADMIRE billionaires for their creation of wealth, not look into the mechanics of how they are maximizing their wealth by underpaying their workers (hi Jeff Bezos! hope you had a fabulous wedding)…
The extreme of unchecked capitalism is as bad as unchecked socialsim. I certainly wounldn’t argue for price controls on amusement parks or theatres, but I think it would behoove the public to not support these high prices, but instead give their entertainment business to venues with more reasonable rates.
Advocating for businesses to not look at just the bottom line is nowhere near the same thing as advocating for the government to force those businesses to do things against their own self interest.
“force those businesses to do things against their own self interest.”
For example, by increasing the minimum wage? Congress in their wisdom has certainly been careful not to force businesses to keep pace with inflation — the federal minimum wage has been at $7.25/hour since 2009…. which would be $11 now if it were indexed to inflation….
I am wondering what other government dictates you have in mind that might unfairly benefit workers and citizens while going against the self interest of businesses?
Hmm, here’s an interesting juxtaposition:
52 weeks of 40 hours @ $7.25 (federal minimum wage) = $15,080 annual income (gross). For 2025, the federal poverty level for a single person is $15,650. This amount is used to determine eligibility for various government programs and benefits.
So businesses are required to pay a minimum that is a tad BELOW the poverty line. But of course the REAL crime against taxpayers (if you listen to some of the currently popular rhetoric) is having to support these undeserving people with “government programs and benefits.”
We certainly wouldn’t want to “force” businesses to pay them a living wage!
Wow, that’s a whole lot of responding to something other than what I said, but I’m happy to play along.
Minimum wage laws do not help anyone. They price certain labor (and people) out of the market arbitrarily and are a perfect example of how centrally planned economies force bad decisions.
Notice how it’s pretty much impossible to find a minimum wage job right now? Even in very rural areas with low CoL? That’s because the market actually does adjust to information and at a much more efficient rate than the government. If a certain geography isn’t paying a “living wage” (whatever that is), then people will, by necessity, move or take a higher paying job. If that job actually provides more value to the employer than a “living wage” (whatever that is), then the wage will increase until someone is willing to take it. If a job doesn’t provide more value to an employer than a “living wage” (whatever that is), then it will be either eliminated because no one will take it, or it will be done by someone who has a lower “living wage” (whatever that is) requirement than what you’ve arbitrarily decided.
Now, government benefits certainly distort that market, by allowing people to take jobs that pay less than a “living wage” (whatever that is). It allows businesses to pay less than they otherwise would.
Back to my point. You seem to think that advocating for businesses to choose to focus on more than just short-term profit is the same as what Bernie and crew want. What socialists want is toxic–they want to control people through the government, by regulating what decisions they can make: how much they can charge for a product, how much they can pay their employees, etc.
This is similar to what Jack is doing, but only in the same way that preaching Islam to your neighbors is the same as instituting Sharia law. Jack wants to advocate, convince, pressure, whatever, people to make decisions that result in what he thinks are better consequences. Bernie wants to use governmental threat of force to make people make decisions that result in what he thinks are better consequences. The difference there is vast.
You are suggesting that the federal minimum wage is universal when that is the minimum the federal government sets. In Maryland the minimum is double that and in DC it’s $17.50. A two F/T earner family each making the minimum wage in DC will earn $70,000 which is far more than my income in retirement. The only northern states that pay the federal minimum is PA and New Hampshire – That is the state that Bernie represents. Even WV pays more at 8.75. California and Washington state are north of $16/hr. Only 19 states use the federal minimum and most of those are low cost of living states.
Minimum wages set the baseline for all wages which is why higher priced union workers lobby for increase in the minimum wage. Any increase in the minimum wage allows them to escalate their wages to maintain a wage differential. So if we assume for arguments sake that the minimum is 7.25/hr and it is legislated to go to 11.50 per hour then that is about a 59% increase in wages. If the union worker makes $20/hr which is 176% of the minimum wage then to maintain the wage differential then the union wage will escalate to 35.20.
Admittedly, the escalation will not take immediate effect but very few labor contracts exceed 3 years so it will not be long before unions up the ante. Employers know this so they begin raising prices now causing any initial increase in purchasing power by minimum wage workers to quickly evaporate.
Adding to this, wage growth and employment in the public sector is growing at a rate faster than the private sector it is a recipe for continued losses among the working poor.
To claim that Walmart and others are being subsidized by the government by paying a sub living wage fails to recognize that these organizations may be paying more than the person is worth but because they need bodies they only hire a majority of part timers who have few skills and do not get costly benefits and those who get them have proven themselves valuable and see their hours are increased to be F/T employees with benefits.
Maybe if those unable to earn a living wage would improve their productive capacity they could earn a living wage. If this is not acceptable then I bet there are thousands of people out their advocating on their behalf who are willing to employ them and give them a living wage.
“Maybe if those unable to earn a living wage would improve their productive capacity they could earn a living wage.”
You’re forgetting the young employee who should make minimum wage and can’t even get a job even if they are willing and capable. There is an interesting dynamic where it’s true that people don’t really want to work and the ones that do can’t get a job. My daughter has been applying for entry jobs since April and hasn’t gotten one yet. She’s in college, has retail experience and sales experience and green house experience and a clean driving record and can’t find a part time entry job to help pay rent.
At one of my jobs currently I am employed at the New York State (Upstate) minimum wage which at the beginning of 2025 became $15.50 an hour. = – = – = – =
In New York City, Westchester County, and Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk County) the minimum wage is currently 16.50 an hour.
= – = – = – = Getting back to my own situation…My boss, of course, is paying me legally, on the table, and with her half of FICA and worker’s comp my hourly cost is well over $16.00 an hour. Here in Rochester NY in the heart of Great Upstate, the economic texture of life has changed since my youth. For example, the vast majority of “Mom and Pop” corner stores within the city limits of Rochester are no longer run by (pardon my colloquial language) old Jews, old Germans, old Italians, old Polacks, or who knows what else. Most of the corner stores are now operated by people from the Middle East. It is my understanding that many of them are families from either Yemen or Palestine, since those two countries are relatively poor, and the families tend to be fairly large. (The discerning reader will recall that Palestinians, in addition to whatever else they are involved in, have a reputation for bein good workers in the oil rich Petrostates such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries, etc). I could go on but I’m not certain that Holly A. is actually interested in my observations, or in changing her mind, or in updating the factual background on which she argues. charles w abbottrochester NY
Somehow WordPress is not putting in enough carriage returns now.
This entire “minimum wage” discussion may be a digression, but as a responsible citizen I’m happy to argue that point that raising the minimum wage is a mixed bag, it’s not an obvious way to help people.
Please forgive me for just posting a link but here is a nice Op Ed essay from the late Walter E. Williams.
I could go on all day but Williams vigorous prose might help.
https://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams071217.php3
When I ran the US Chamber of Commerce’s research foundation,one the academics I retained to write about the minimum wage was a young, relatively unknown professor named Walter Williams.
The “poverty level” is a nonsensical figure and not worth including in a discussion. Poverty in Arkansas is a lot different from poverty in NYC, and that’s for starters. And I know you know that, so why would you use that figure?
“For example, by increasing the minimum wage? Congress in their wisdom has certainly been careful not to force businesses to keep pace with inflation — the federal minimum wage has been at $7.25/hour since 2009…. which would be $11 now if it were indexed to inflation….”
The federal minimum wage in 2025 is exactly what it was in 2009: $0.
The minimum wage is as economically grotesque as anything socialists/communists have ever thought up. First, supply and demand isn’t just a good idea, it is the law.
Second, and even worse, is that the government imposes upon a sector of the economy — businesses needing low-skill labor — a policy that by all rights apply broadly. In so doing, faux minimum wage laws (faux, because they trumpet the alleged inadequacy of, say $7.25 without acknowledging the real amount — $0) penalize low skill workers by pricing them out of the market.
“Isn’t greed a central virtue of corporate America?” No. Galbreath’s “New Industrial State” argued that corporations needed to develop identifying cultures that encouraged loyalty and trust. Disney believed that his company should “spare no expemse” to deliver the best experience possible first, with profit secondary. The Boston Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey declared that his team was a public institution and benefit to the people of Boston and New England, and he never attempted to maximize profits. Neither did the Yankees under George Steinbrenner. Remember when Google’s motto was “Don’t be evil”?
Yeah, this all seems totally quaint right? Galbraith’s NIS was published in 1967, Yawkey died in 1976, Steinbrenner’s run lasted until 2010 but he definitely had values from an earlier era.
Today’s billionaire icons are the lionized “successful businessman” Mr stiff-your-contractors (they can’t afford lawyers, right?), don’t-deliver-value-to-customers (Trump University?) and leave-the-banks-holding-the-bag (we love bankruptcies!) and Mr surely-I-deserve-$56 billion-in-compensation considering the billions my company has extracted from the federal government!
Caring about your customers or the “public good”? Weak! Woke! Weenism!
“Donald Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy or liquidation bankruptcy; he has only filed for business bankruptcy under Chapter 11, which allows companies to reorganize their debts. His business entities have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times.”
Reorganization does not leave bankers holding the bag or stiffing contractors. Without bankruptcy protections the banks and other lenders could be left with nothing if debtors have no way to work their way out of a prolonged economic downturn. Bankruptcy law is an insulator against risk to borrowers and lenders alike because without it we would all be living as they did in 19th century Europe.
The daughter of the piano supplier who claimed Trump stiffed her father never offered any proof nor did she show where a claim of repossession was sought in a court. It does not cost that much to claim breach of a simple contract. It could be that supplier (A) did not meet the contractual obligation and was unable to prevail in court but that report was not jus one sided it lacked evidence. Stiffing your contractors is a fast way to failure in the business world especially in New York because once you get that label no one will work for you.
Trump’s Business Hauled In $2.4 Billion During Four Years He Served As President
Perhaps you should read the article and nowhere does it say he is profiting from government payments. Even this hit piece acknowledges that most of his revenues come from his existing enterprises and Top line revenue does not mean he collected all of that money for himself. The author deceptively omits the fact that from those revenues he pays property taxes, salaries, maintenance on properties etc.
This author provides no evidence of wrongdoing he just states that Trump spent taxpayer dollars going to Trump organization properties and billed the government for other personnel housed there while he was there. To make the claim have merit one must show that the expenses billed were exorbitant and uncustomary. No evidence that what was done was explicitly or even implicitly wrongdoing. It is just as likely that he discounted the costs for his protective detail at his properties as it was that he exploited the government for gain. What was the costs for such details for other presidents while they traveled? why did the author choose not to make that argument? I would be surprised if DJT or the government got a bill for his stay at his resorts. Finally, even if you believe that Trump should not bill for services his organizations provides to the government where is the rationale for such an argument?
Trump Org Made $1.7 Billion While Trump Was President, Much of It From Taxpayers | Truthout
As for Trump University, why are so many who went to other colleges demanding a bailout for the big loans they were conned into taking out. I will not condemn any one until the major universities take responsibility for putting hundreds of thousands of students into a lifetime of debt repayments upon promises of a high paying career upon graduation. Students have a responsibility to assess the merits of an offer as well before they accept the cost.
Smart. Ethical. Effective.
Actually, this is a classic supply and demand issue. The pricing methodology is used to ration a fixed number of seats on rides and overall park amenities.
Our population has doubled since the sixties but stadium sizes have not. We have also grown accustomed to elaborate vacations instead of just a week at the lake or ocean.
Several weeks back I stated that you cannot buy an $8000 pickup anymore because today’s vehicles are about as similar to a truck in 1985 as the truck in 1985 was to one in the fifties. We keep adding to the basic attributes of just about everything. No longer are we satisfied with a public library or encyclopedia we now want high speed digital access to every known fact that exists. We are impatient. We are unwilling to wait and shopping means surfing the net without any need to get off our butts.
While I have never been to a Disney theme park or any other of elaborate media creations, I suspect the offerings are far different than the spinning tea cups of yore or a haunted house in which you sat in a tracked unit that took you through what would be considered today as cheesy static characters or vignettes.
Disney is offering what people want at a price that still causes shortages which is indicated by the jump the line premiums.
As for tickets to sporting events I don’t see anyone bemoaning players salaries but instead berate the ownership.
Several weeks back I stated that you cannot buy an $8000 pickup anymore because today’s vehicles are about as similar to a truck in 1985 as the truck in 1985 was to one in the fifties.
Excellent observation.
Inflation statistics measure the change in price over time for a good — in this specific case, a common, garden variety, one-each pickup truck.
The 1985 $8000 pickup now probably goes for $40000. So, 500% inflation over 40 years, right?
Wrong. The proper question to ask is: how much dollars would it take in 1985 to buy 2025’s average pickup truck?The answer: infinity dollars. For a great many things more complicated than a carrot, over a sufficient time span, the products are incomparable. A late model used pickup at the $8000 price point is so superior to a 1985 pickup that the latter would be unsellable at $8000.
This is a common problem with inflation measures. The CPI uses a market basket approach but neither the composition of the basket nor the individual components are exactly the same over time. If we applied this to the labor market in which we compared skilled labor to skilled labor in 2025 to 1975 the skill sets are radically different even among what we might consider unchanging industries like being an electrician or auto tech. Today’s electricians need to be current in PLC’s and automated systems and auto techs need far more training than just being able tweak the timing on a 68 GTO. Today’s unskilled labor is also far different. Literacy rates among the least skilled are far worse than those 40 years ago and they demand relatively higher wages that are not commensurate with the value they can create for their employer.
I f-ing hate WordPress. It won’t remember my details, won’t keep me logged in, and lunches a comment if I incorrectly enter the password that it should remember, or allow me to remain logged in.
The comment that disappeared is that I have some personal experience with C33 (not as a member). It is invisible to essentially all park goers no C33 members, and to the extent it generates a profit, it lowers prices to the commoners.
You have my sympathy.
My approach is to compose and post only on one particular desktop machine that has the digital cookie that consistently has allowed me to post in the past, and that WordPress seems to be happy with. Though I read ethics alarms elsewhere, I only post comments from one machine. (That’s why often my comments come out a few days after the initial post.)
In addition I often email a draft to myself first.
WordPress often results in me “deleting my whole post” with overtype. It’s not deliberate, but somehow it leads me to type over what is already in the “composing window.” Fortunately, Control^Z seems to bring back the text that suddenly vanished.
charles w abbott
Rochester NY
My takeaway from all the comments on this post is that except for Holly everybody understands the pricing of tickets for Disney team parks, Broadway shows, and major sports events to be an economical issue governed by the laws of supply and demand; hence it is not an ethical issue.
I am not sure why we should be concerned about cultural segregation. Take for instance Disneyland. Would you recommend people to go there? Would a trip to Six Flags much closer not delivery better value for your money? Here in Rochester NY we have an amusement park Sea Breeze with tickets for under $50. Nobody is entitled to go to Disney.
About major sports events, if the New York Yankees or the Buffalo Bills are playing we can watch it on a big flat screen TV at home. That surely did not exists back in the fifties.
Nobody is entitled to cheap tickets for major attractions and events, surely given that there are sufficient alternative ways to entertainment at decent price ranges for people with limited means.
The one ethical problem I see is related to bots and ticket scalping. When tickets for a major cultural or sports event go on sale, bots may buy the majority of the tickets in order to resell these at outrageous prices. E.g. $900 dollars for Hamilton at Broadway. This practice ought to be outlawed in my opinion.
The other doubt I have is about subsidizing the construction of stadiums for sports teams; if a team can offer a player a contract for 300M, they surely do not need to run their business with support of the tax payers.
Wow. There are a lot of cultural/experiential gaps right in this comment!
My takeaway from all the comments on this post is that except for Holly everybody understands the pricing of tickets for Disney team parks, Broadway shows, and major sports events to be an economical issue governed by the laws of supply and demand; hence it is not an ethical issue.
The fact that supply and demand allows the pricing does not make the pricing right, fair, beneficent or ethical. That is an ethical issue. You can charge the maximum. Should you?
I am not sure why we should be concerned about cultural segregation.
Really? NYC is about to elect a falt out Communist mayor because lots of 20-somethings don’t know history, culture, or what their own country is about. Read “Cultural Literacy.” Cultural segregation means that generations and economic classess can’t communicate with each other.
Take for instance Disneyland. Would you recommend people to go there?
ABSOLUTELY. All four of my Disney trips, one at Anaheim, three in Orlando, one paid entirely by my job at the time, were among the best days and times of my life, and I’ve had a LOT of great days. And they were all as an adult.
Would a trip to Six Flags much closer not delivery better value for your money? There is no comparison. None. Six Flags is an amusement park. Have you ever been to Disneyland or Disney World? As conceived, its a statement, a promise, an aspirational values display. I regret never taking my son to Disney World, but he never wanted to go.
Nobody is entitled to go to Disney.
Where in the essay did I say anyone was? I do say that Disney, as spiritual public utility, should feel the obligation to make it as accessible to all as possible.
About major sports events, if the New York Yankees or the Buffalo Bills are playing we can watch it on a big flat screen TV at home.
Again, wow. There is, again, no comparison between watching a live sporting even in the crowd and watching it on TV, and it doesn’t matter how big the screen is. That statement shows a lack of understanding of shared experiences, which is part of what the phenomenon I was discussing has done to most of the public. I have people look right n my face and say, “Why see a live drama or musical or comedy when you can watch it on TV?” It’s like a gold fish asking, “Why would I ever want to be out of my bowl?”
Nobody is entitled to cheap tickets for major attractions and events, surely given that there are sufficient alternative ways to entertainment at decent price ranges for people with limited means.
For baseball team especially not to have super-cheap tickets available for families and kids is just stupid, and bad business. The game needs to cultivate fans: it’s demographics are terrible: old, white, male. It doesn’t cost very much to have say, a thousand cheap seats available for every game.
“The fact that supply and demand allows the pricing does not make the pricing right, fair, beneficent or ethical. That is an ethical issue. You can charge the maximum. Should you?“
The adjectives right, fair, beneficial, ethical do not apply to pricing. Assume the market can bear a $175 price for one day at a Disney theme park, plus $90 for skipping the line for a major attraction. That would price some families out of Disney. Why are the prices so high compared to many decades ago? The answer has to do with popularity. The lines for the attractions at Disney are so long because there are way too many visitors. This is an indicator that the prices for a day at a Disney park are actually too low. So Disney has two short term options to reduce the length of the lines: a) have people pay more for general admission b) have people pay for skipping the line. For the long term Disney may consider building more theme parks. What Disney should NOT do is lowering the prices, as that would result in even more visitors and even longer lines, and perhaps telling visitors that tickets have been sold out.
For sports events and concerts lowering the prices would result in tickets being sold out quickly; it is an extremely frustrating experience when as soon as tickets go on sale everybody logs in to Ticketmaster at the same time, face delays, and still end up without a ticket that you were able and willing to pay for. This problem is similar to lines to buy gas during the Nixon and Carter administration. The only way to make sure that everybody willing to pay is able to obtain a scarce product or service is to jack up the prices.
Take for instance Disneyland. Would you recommend people to go there?
Here I am reacting to myself as I visited Animal Planet in Orlando last year, also Disney. The problem with the most popular Disney team parks is that they are so busy, and the lines so long, that it cuts down on the fun. For the same reason tourism influencers advice people to stay away from destinations that have become too popular, and recommend that they search alternatives.
Again, wow. There is, again, no comparison between watching a live sporting even in the crowd and watching it on TV, and it doesn’t matter how big the screen is.
Sure, but how often do you have to go to a live sporting event? A family may decide to visit a major sports event once a year, or even less. That should be enough to create the shared experience. If you want a season ticket, you ought to be willing to pay for it. Same is true for live theater and musicals, and classical concerts.
Certain things in life are luxuries. Luxuries are things that are good and enriching, but not essential for the concerns in the bottom of the Maslow pyramid (survival, security, belonging). Enjoying these luxuries depends of the willingness to part with disposable means, which of course have to be earned first.
My parents who grew up during the Great Depression had no access to concerts, theater, and pro sports events, and did not have the money and time to go on vacation. Sports meant playing a game of soccer after school time. Culture meant singing in church and listening to the organ. The reality has always been that the rich had access to nice things (high culture, travel, and other luxuries) and the poor did not. That is just simply how the world works.
There is merit in living a minimalist and frugal lifestyle. Instead of going on big vacations, or visiting big destinations, can we learn to be content with smaller happenings, such as visiting local and state parks, concerts in local church, community theater? Even better join a choir or sports team.
Thank you! I WAS indeed, replying to JM’s original post in the spirit in which I believe it was intended (and which this most recent comment reaffirms) — that there is value in shared cultural experiences that used to be more boradly affordable across different economic classes (not the poor, necessarily, but to the middle class more broadly).
The smaller slice of the populace that can afford things like going to live theater or a family outing to the ball park (not including attending high school games, which are I believe still free in most locales?) is, I believe, in part attributable to inflation in ticket prices and in part attributable to the income of the middle economic section of the country not keeping up re wages / purchasing ability. Something like live theatre in particular is going to be relatively more expensive (compared to something like big screen TVs — which are a very different experience) as a big chunk of the costs are for skilled human labor.
On a bit of a digression related to the labor costs of events like live theatre, college tuition also tends to outpace inflation in part because so much of the cost goes to salaries and also (in the last 20 years for so-called “state” institutions) because of a massive disinvestment by states in higher education. At the University of Oregon, for example (where I spent the last few decades of my professional life), we used to joke that Phil Knight was a bigger contributor to the University than the state of Oregon. When you factor in the cost of “unfunded mandate” elements imposed by the state (which has a level of control completely disproportionate to its financial contribution) this might actually be literally true. Thank you Uncle Phil!!! We love you!!
CVB. Well said. My initial take on the post was it reminded me of someone saying “ in my day bread was only a nickel”. We soon forget about the impact of free agency in sports that drives up costs. And did average wages for those in the arts stay the same in terms of constant dollars. I would bet many factors impact the cost structures of entertainment venues. I can only imagine what it costs to insure a theme park today versus 50 years ago given the rise of litigation and lawyers implying that they can get a big settlement for a minor injury.
Big league sports franchises are money machines. Teams are far more profitable now than they were when palyers had to work as as used car salesmen in the off-season.
I agree with all that.
My workaround has been to go to see acts of a lower stature in smaller venues. So far it is working out great. No, I won’t be going to see the ancient Rolling Stones or any of the other big names that I don’t automatically detest, but that’s okay.
But I have been introduced to some terrific music at a fraction of the price, and now I wonder why I didn’t think of it sooner.
We long ago stopped going to plays due to the expense. A recent trip to Las Vegas proved that we can no longer afford to go there ($70 for both of us to have 2 eggs, 3 strips of bacon, a few hash browns, toast, and coffee? Nope.) and “resort fees” that make a “free” room a joke. But that’s okay — there are many less expensive places for us to have a Vegas-like experience.
So we have been searching smaller venues for newer (or ancient acts not a big name) and have been satisfied with the results so far.
This can’t continue forever, and what can’t continue … won’t. The next significant economic downturn is likely to leave a lot of places and events without customers.
Random pointless thoughts:
I’ve been hearing a lot lately from the Dodgers fans, and it must be true of the Cubs fans too. They’ can’t afford their stadiums. Tickets being $500/pc or something. It’s cheaper for them to book a flight to Denver, grab some $25-$150 tickets (Some in the stadium go for a few bucks on resell sites) and it’s a nice quick getaway to see their team play on the road.
My wife is the queen of finding a deal. She recently paid $120 for her and my daughter to sit front row, center with only the orchestra between them for the touring Moulin Rouge performance at DCPA; but that involved timing and luck to buy last minute tickets returned to the box office and taking advantage of a program to allow students and seniors to buy 2 tickets at half price.
Deals exist for those who are persistent and flexible, but if you’re trying to plan your existence, it’s really bad and you pay through the nose. The whole Disneyland thing is mindboggling – and the threat to their existence is real. Consider what’s currently happening with Las Vegas. The casinos no longer comp drinks for gamblers, or rooms for big players, and they’re charging such exorbitant prices for everything that I’d be surprised if they had 40% occupancy. Maybe the tales of despair that I hear are overblown, but it sounds like a full collapse.
With Disney – I struggle with them because I want to view them as an amusement park when they are firmly a theme park. Universal is bridging that hybrid distinction very well when it comes to their Harry Potter / Nintendo / Epic Universe experiences.
Gone are the days where you went to Disney to walk around, enjoy their gardens, buy some Disney inspired merchandise, catch a glimpse of your favorite characters, and eat some international cuisine. Our world is now the Disney experience Walt envisioned – and his parks have become the exclusive destination of IP owned experiences.
Are the prices too much? Too much for me – and that’s ok. If I want to go, I’d shell out the money I suppose. What would irk me is that they charge that much and then still let in too many people. For those prices, it should have a bit more elbow room. How nice for local southern california residents that they can buy an annual pass for $599. Probably only grants a general admission, but that’s usually between $104-$206 depending on the date anyway.
T LeV wrote: Consider what’s currently happening with Las Vegas. … Maybe the tales of despair that I hear are overblown, but it sounds like a full collapse.
Oops that posted prematurely — trying again:
T LeV wrote: Consider what’s currently happening with Las Vegas. … Maybe the tales of despair that I hear are overblown, but it sounds like a full collapse.
I am in Vegas right now for a sports competition and I had also seen many tales of doom in the media before coming.
So here’s an on-site report. I arrived yesterday (Tuesday) and indeed the airport and the resort seemed to be seriously underpopulated. HOWEVER, upon questioning the ubiquitous resort staff who help people navigate the rather confusing layout of the resort, it turns out Tuesday is rountinely the slowest day of the week.
There are noticeably more people around today (Wednesday) but still not BUSY (most slot machines empty of people). If Friday also seems slow, I’ll take that as a particularly bad sign for the resort.
I’ve also asked many of the service folk I have encountered — a few of said resort staff, shuttle driver at the airport (me and one other couple the only people in a big bus) bartender at the restaurant (no trouble finding seating!), the Uber driver who brought me back from the grocery store, people in a few resort shops I visited (only customer in one, one of two customers in the other) and there is a general agreement that traffic is down, and two people mentioned layoffs. I’ve been tipping more generously than usual to help….
So yes, traffic is down, things are slower as reported by people actually working in the business who (many of them) depend on tips as an important supplement to their hourly wage. Whether this portends a “collapse” likely depends on the specific business and their profit margins. At one of the resort stores I was in the sales guy kept spontaneously dropping the price for the item I was looking at (not something I actually decided to buy) and when the other person came in, same deal (other person also left without buying). Maybe this is his typical sales schtick but maybe it’s also a sign of someone who depends on commission and is feeling kind of needy….
As a lifelong singleton I haven’t even thought of Disney in who knows how long. I really stopped giving a damn when they went woke and started being all about politically correct narratives. As a man with neither wife nor daughters, you can only hear about so many girl empowerment stories before you yawn and say “that’s nice. Do you have anything different?” But it didn’t stop there. When they are having bearded male employees in drag greeting children and can’t even say “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” because they are afraid of leaving some tiny and mentally ill minority out, you know they’ve gone far past the politically correct event horizon. Frankly a place like that is a place a single and conservative man like myself would feel uncomfortable in, since you know it’s pitched at everyone BUT you. I had hope that when Disney did Hercules in 1997 (damn, that’s almost 30 years ago) that they might do more with the classical myths to appeal to both genders. The Odyssey is perfect, for example, with all kinds of visuals, devotion to family, and a hero who out-thinks as well as out-fights the enemies he runs into. But no such luck. In Disney the male heroes are like the groom at a wedding, they need to be there, but they are the last and least important detail.
That’s before we even talk about the ridiculous prices just to walk through the gate, with many more expensive additions to level up until you can have the best experience you possibly can, which I would want since it costs so much just to get there. It’s just not worth it. And taking a family? Forget it. Thankfully my niece, who is now starting college, didn’t get into Disney enough to want to go, although my brother and sister-in-law probably would have had enough of a spine between them to tell her no.