Paying Thousands to Watch A Ball Being Flung Around

Sports are universal. They are something that happen everywhere and that help unite people. In one way or another everyone ends up involved in sports at some point in their life. It can be as a player, a coach, a mascot, a cheerleader, someone who watches the games, and so on. The point being, sports are something everyone wants to be a part of. Now, everyone is aware that to participate in any way you have to pay. Whether it’s for uniforms or for tickets, chances are that you’re going to dish out some cash at some point. According to an article in Time.com written by Brad Tuttle, entitled ‘Freaking Ridiculous’ NFL Stadium Seat Fees Cost Thousands- But Fans Pay Up, sometimes the price can be quite high. 

It seems as though the new thing to do when it comes to charging sports fans, is something known as PSL’s, or personal seat licenses. These fees start from $10,000 and go up to $150,000. These fees don’t include tickets, they must be paid by anyone who wants to buy season tickets. So, you’re paying so that you can pay, basically. The crazy thing is, that as incredibly absurd as this sounds, people are still doing it. A Vikings fan was quoted as saying, “I’ve just been a part of the experience for too many years to let it go away, and sit at home and watch it.” To me that is just ridiculous. These fees don’t make sense, no matter what anyone says, but they exist because people are willing to pay them. I’m willing to bet that if fans refused to pay for them and stopped buying tickets for at least a season, there wouldn’t be any choice but to get rid of them. 

I can understand that sometimes it seems sacrilegious to break tradition. I can understand wanting to continue going to games because it’s just the way that things have been. And of course I can understand enjoying going to games and having that experience. However, I’m not sure that a tradition is worth $150,000 dollars, not including tickets themselves. It’s just not the way that things work. The world is changing and so I know that things will not cost the same as they did twenty years ago. But, that doesn’t mean that people should have to put up with an incredibly high increase in the prices of recreational activities. As the consumers we have the power to change things. We don’t have to just go with what is dictated and pay the amount that we’re told we have to. If we take a stand, the prices will change, because if we aren’t buying, who will? 

We Need More Cars!!! Or do We?

       According to an article in Time.com written by Brad Tuttle, entitled Automakers Don’t Have Enough Cars to Keep Up with Buyers, car dealerships sold a lot of new vehicles in the last month. In fact, they would have sold more but they didn’t have enough cars. This is rather surprising, considering the average vehicle purchase price was $31,252. There is really no good explanation for why there has been such a demand for cars when the time to buy is not the best. Right now, the lack of cars and the high demand means that the dealers are less likely to bargain.

       However, for those that are patient, the time may be coming. Because of the high demand in this last month, it is possible that dealerships will get more new cars. If the demand decreases once the cars are at the dealerships, they will have no choice but to sell them at a lower price. 

       I don’t understand this to be honest. Everyone is always complaining about the bad economy and how times are hard and how gas is so expensive, etc. Yet, the statistics show that people are buying new cars left and right. That just doesn’t make sense. I don’t know what is prompting people to buy right now. Perhaps it’s because the people that are buying haven’t bought new cars in a long time and their last one gave out. Or maybe, they got a raise and therefore could afford it. This also makes me wonder whether this is good or bad for the economy. On one side, it could be good because people are actively buying and more money is flowing. On the other hand, if the people that are buying these cars do it in payments and then they fall behind, that isn’t good. 

       This leads me to believe that perhaps people end up in debt because they buy on impulse thinking they can afford things but then they end up not being able to meet the payments and when they least expect it they’re in too deep. This brings me to another question. I wonder if the people who are buying these cars are middle or upper class. If they’re upper class then it makes sense that they would buy even when it’s not the best deal. They can afford to do so. However, middle-class citizens work hard for their money and I would expect them to take better care of it. Ultimately, regardless of who is buying, cars are in high demand at the moment. I’m curious as to how this will progress.

More Jobs=Higher Unemployment. Wait, what?

       You would think that because of the creation of new jobs there would be lower unemployment, but according to an article in The New York Times it’s the opposite. The reason for this is that people are only considered unemployed when they are actively looking for jobs. An increase in jobs means that there is more hope for people to find one and therefore more people are looking. I find this to be very interesting. Does this mean that if a place has a high unemployment rate it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a lack of jobs?

       The article also states that due to the increase in jobs that are available there is more “optimism in the economy.” It’s rather ironic that a rising level of unemployment isn’t negatively affecting the attitude of the citizens. I don’t understand why it is that people are only classified as unemployed when they are looking for jobs though. If a person is not contributing to society economically then they should be classified as unemployed, in my opinion. When I hear unemployed I think of someone who doesn’t have a job, including people that aren’t looking for one. 

       This makes me wonder who was the one that came up with this way of counting things. There has to be a reason for why this is the way things are. My theory is that maybe it had something to do with getting benefits from it, sort of how when they were writing the new constitution the delegates wanted to count the slaves as part of the population in order to get more representation in the government, but not when it came to being taxed. I’m probably way off, but that’s what I think.

       The article also mentions that in New Jersey last month there was a loss of jobs and yet the unemployment rate decreased. I really don’t understand that logic. Does that mean because there were less jobs available then less people were looking for a job and therefore weren’t considered unemployed? This really is a puzzling concept to me. I wonder if everything dealing with economics is this complicated. Maybe the reason this is all so difficult to understand is because there are so many variables when it comes to calculating data, especially with money and how it travels. If I knew what numbers were used to calculate certain things and why that is I’m sure this would all make more sense. 

This article, entitled New York City's Jobless Rate Increased to 8.6% in August Despite Hiring Gains, was written on September 19, 2013 by Patrick McGeehan and published in The New York Times