Orlando theme parks start targeting the super rich

Brian Noble said:
...charge *most* people a little bit less, and a few people a lot more, give those few people a "VIP experience", and make the day in the park more affordable for everyone else...

OMG SOCIALISM!!!

LostKause said:
I started recording my own music becasue I can't find any reliable, yet alone talented, musicians anymore.

What a shame, because I've basically all but stopped drumming because of the same thing.

OMG SOCIALISM!!!

Or, just the opposite.

In this case, the people paying more are getting more, too.

OMG CAPITALISM!!!

Brian Noble said:
Or, just the opposite.

In this case, the people paying more are getting more, too.

Same thing happens in "actual" socialism, except that the results are not immediately obvious to those paying more. As in, amusement park CEO pays more in taxes, thus relieving the tax burden of a very large segment of potential guests, and making it easier for said guest to visit the CEO's park, which results in increased revenue for the park, and perhaps a bonus (aka "more") for the CEO...

It's the economic circle of life. :)

My instrument cost $5k. I must be super rich.

Oh, and finding talented & reliable musicians is difficult, but it, just like any other successful endeavor, requires a lot of work. It's possible.

So, are many coaster enthusiasts also musicians? :)

I'm a a Moosh/Carrie/Gonch enthusiast. I don't even LIKE coasters.

Vater said:
My instrument cost $5k. I must be super rich.

Right? Drummers wish they could get away with a $200 MIDI controller or a $800 guitar.

LostKause said:
I started recording my own music becasue I can't find any reliable, yet alone talented, musicians anymore.

Raven-Phile said:What a shame, because I've basically all but stopped drumming because of the same thing.

For me it was always finding people who wanted to pursue it seriously.

djDaemon said:
Same thing happens in "actual" socialism, except that the results are not immediately obvious to those paying more. As in, amusement park CEO pays more in taxes, thus relieving the tax burden of a very large segment of potential guests, and making it easier for said guest to visit the CEO's park, which results in increased revenue for the park, and perhaps a bonus (aka "more") for the CEO...

There's a pretty big "perhaps" in there.

Raven-Phile said:

I'm a a Moosh/Carrie/Gonch enthusiast. I don't even LIKE coasters.

But not necessarily in that order, of course. ;)

Of course not. :) Much like people with roller coasters, I find it difficult to pick favorites.

Lord Gonchar said:
There's a pretty big "perhaps" in there.

Perhaps. :)

But how likely is increased revenue going to lead to a reduced salary for the CEO? At the very least, the CEO is paying more in taxes to increase his job security. Which is better than paying less to increase your chance at losing your job, especially for someone making 10+ times the cost of living.

Lord Gonchar said:

Right? Drummers wish they could get away with a $200 MIDI controller or a $800 guitar.

They also wish they could get away with lugging and setting up only a couple guitars or MIDI controller to gigs.

My dad used to ask me why couldn't I have taken up the piccolo. :)

djDaemon said:
But how likely is increased revenue going to lead to a reduced salary for the CEO?

It doesn't necessarily lead to a higher salary either. Trickle-up economics looks just as good on paper as trickle-down economics.

I personally don't think a simple circle is a good economic plan - you need money flowing in all directions.

Maybe the economic web of life instead of the economic circle of life?

But I'm not an economist in profession or hobby...or even anything beyond a passing interest when the topic comes up around here. :)

With that said, if the CEO is paying more so that others pay less and then gets their money in return - on paper isn't he essentially just getting his own money back? (assuming he gets as much back as he put in - which is a pretty big assumption in itself)

And even if he does get back what he put in making it a 'no loss' scenario, that implies a moral obligation for those at the top to help those at the bottom - which is another big opinionated variable.

At the very least, the CEO is paying more in taxes to increase his job security. Which is better than paying less to increase your chance at losing your job, especially for someone making 10+ times the cost of living.

You can sell it however you want, but it's still forcing the hand of the big guy to prop up the little guy. That's not growth, that's a circle. No one gets anywhere.

I'd prefer the little guy pulls himself up and everyone gets ahead. Create wealth, don't redistribute it.

Vater said:
My dad used to ask me why couldn't I have taken up the piccolo. :)

Did you tell him it was because you didn't want your ass kicked on a daily basis? :)

ROFL

Yeah, lugging and setting up all my stuff has always been a terrible inconvenience. I envy the guys with drum techs. :)

Lord Gonchar said:
You can sell it however you want, but it's still forcing the hand of the big guy to prop up the little guy.

Nah, not really. It's forcing the "big guy" to realize that hoarding his wealth creates a funnel of wealth away from the masses. And that ultimately leads to the "big guy" having an insufficient number of "little guys" to sell his stuff to.

But when the "big guy" loses his job as a result of having no "little guy" customers, it's OK, because the "big guy" has a nice fat bank account.

No one gets anywhere.

Yeah, because the unregulated, tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy free market has taken us to such awesome places by comparison. :)

I'd prefer the little guy pulls himself up and everyone gets ahead. Create wealth, don't redistribute it.

That's empty rhetoric at best, and a piss poor campaign talking point at worst.

I'd vote for someone who campaigned with that empty rhetoric. Heaven forbid we encourage people to create their own success.