• XIIIesq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    It would only take one or two big tickets gigs to not sell to see prices come down.

    If people are fine paying that price, there’s no problem.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It would only take one or two big tickets gigs to not sell to see prices come down

      That’s just factually inaccurate. Also an extremely unrealistic and unfair demand of the victims of exploitation.

      If people are fine paying that price, there’s no problem

      They aren’t but they don’t have a choice. That’s the point.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can refuse to accept basic economics if you want, I can’t make you. Things are priced to sell, it’s as simple as that

        Go back to comment 1. Not buying IS an option, no one is forcing you to attend the gig, if the price is too high, then don’t go.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          basic economics

          You know that other factors exist than just the most basic fundamentals, right? because you’re acting like you don’t.

          Things are priced to sell

          Things are priced to profit. When the combination of a popular/arguably necessary commodity and little to no competition lets them, companies will exploit that to abuse people for extra profit.

          Not buying IS an option

          It’s not a GOOD option, though, and not one that anyone should be coerced into rather than reining in abusive corporations that break the law.

          no one is forcing you to attend the gig, if the price is too high, then don’t go.

          No one is forcing companies to abuse people either. That you think depriving people of entertainment is a better option than upholding the law by doing something about abusively profiteering corporations says a lot about you, none of it good.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            We could argue all day. I take a principled stand of refusing to participate in things that I view as unfair.

            If you and others continue to contribute to a system that you view as unfair, knowing that you don’t have to, that’s something you have to come to terms with yourself.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I take a principled stand of refusing to participate in things that I view as unfair.

              And I’m arguing that it would be more principled to take steps to stop the abuse by holding the abusers accountable than to make it the responsibility of the victims to affect change by depriving themselves needlessly.

              If you and others continue to contribute to a system that you view as unfair, knowing that you don’t have to, that’s something you have to come to terms with yourself

              Yeah, because “either don’t enjoy music live or it’s your fault” isn’t victim blaming at all, nuh-uh! 🙄

              This is how you’re acting:

              • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                He seems to believe that poor people don’t deserve live music events. Only good for the rich, us poor workers have to keep on working so our bosses can have entertainment.