Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 400 posts

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#51

Post by psb217 »

hypeatei wrote: post #35
grecy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One third of all donations on GoFundMe are for medical expenses. [1] the very vast majority of that must be Americans. I’m staggered how many Americans are steadfastly against socialized healthcare for all, but immediately turn to GoFundMe in desperation when their insurance tells them to take a hike. I can’t help thinking “just do that for everyone” [1] https://time.com/5516037/gofundme-medical-bills-one-third-ce...

> in desperation when their insurance tells them to take a hike. Socialized healthcare is good because it doesn't mean you're tied to a job or worried about in/out network hospitals. But, care would still be rationed as it doesn't magically provide us with infinite resources. I just like to point this out since there are very good arguments for socialized care in the US, but this isn't one of them.

It's not unreasonable to argue for socialized healthcare based on treatment denials in private healthcare, since there are impactful differences in the incentives driving denials and rationing in private vs socialized healthcare. I agree that the argument should be more nuanced than just "denials happen".

The incentive for private health insurers is to raise prices and increase denial rate until people are unwilling or unable to pay. People will pay until they can't, since they don't want to die, so this can be pushed pretty far. The incentive for socialized healthcare, at least in principle, is to provide people with as much treatment as is feasible for the amount of incoming funds. In one case rationing is driven by a need to remain solvent and in the other case it's driven by profit maximization. The different incentives lead to significant differences in how people are impacted by the denials/rationing that necessarily exist in both systems.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#52

Post by anotherhue »

gruez wrote: post #39
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts (by definition a socialist or communist structure) as being a late-stage capitalism problem shows you’ve got no clue what these terms actually mean. That's just the capitalists outright purchasing the legislators, so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.

>so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps. Do those people magically start needing food and healthcare once they're employed by walmart? Why is it suddenly walmarts problem the moment they become a walmart employee? Would anyone stakeholder in this situation (the employees, society, walmart) be better off if the employee was no longer employ…

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no more) and frustratingly by being the vendor honouring the stamps.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#53

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

rawcal wrote: post #41
aomix wrote: post #21

Olympians being "people with really intense hobbies" is still weird to me. I haven't reconciled in my mind that the life of AA baseball players getting paid a little more than minimum wage plus a meal stipend is a dream for 90% of Olympians who, if they win, become national symbols of excellence for a week every 4 years.

Wasn't "people with really intense hobbies" how modern olympics started though, going as far as banning professionals in early days?

„Early days“ is until 1990 in that case, which is surprisingly late. Some nations got around the ban by employing the athletes as soldiers and allowing them to prepare almost full time though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and...

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#54

Post by anotherhue »

PapstJL4U wrote: post #45
tsss wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Is it a hobby because they like doing it?

What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested.

If it's a hobby then there's no expected return, so it feels closer to that.

I don't begrudge them, and would be in favour of a sensible fixed amount of federal funding, but it ain't a job.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#55

Post by kgilpin »

a2tech wrote: post #14

This is the reality of building your life around sport—-there’s basically no money in it unless you’re on the extreme edge. I wish people would stop dumping their entire life’s energy into chasing it—-do something more useful like stamping parts out in a factory. Olympic athletes are stunningly focused achievers—I’d love to see that energy and drive applied to something that mattered.

Sports is entertainment. It inspires people and brings joy. It brings people together. It sets positive examples of the rewards that can come from consistent effort and teamwork. Athletes are people making the most of the gifts they’ve been given. This is all laudable.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#56

Post by anotherhue »

themaninthedark wrote: post #42
Y-bar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think artists should have a livable wage as well.

I would like to provide liveable wages for both artists and athletes. Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? When do we start funding them? In high-school, before? After they graduate? There are many people who identify as athletes at that age, football players, cheerleaders. I have a 6yo son who is really good at doing various crafts and he really enjoys it, does he count as an artist? How do we d…

Al least you can race the athletes against each other to find out who is the best. Much hard to do that with artists.

We could say we'll fund the fastest people but in all liklihood those will turn out to be people who have dedicated the most time to their sport, which is a pretty good proxy for being rich, because most people can't afford that level of time investment.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#57

Post by gruez »

anotherhue wrote: post #52
gruez wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps. Do those people magically start needing food and healthcare once they're employed by walmart? Why is it suddenly walmarts problem the moment they become a walmart employee? Would anyone stakeholder in this situation (the employees, society, walmart) be better off if the employee was no longer employ…

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam. If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no mo…

>If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly

But we do? The EITC is basically a negative income tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

>I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

Ironically negative income taxes are closer to a labor "subsidy", than food stamps, because they're contingent on income (ie. labor), unlike food stamps which don't give you more money if you make more.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#58

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

anotherhue wrote: post #54
PapstJL4U wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a hobby because they like doing it?

What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested. If it's a hobby then there's no expected return, so it feels closer to that. I don't begrudge them, and would be in favour of a sensible fixed amount of federal funding, but it ain't a job.

> What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested.

I‘d guess the vast majority of Olympians do compete in other events outside the Olympics and do provide more entertainment than just once every four years.

The Olympics don‘t pay the bills, but other events do. And many athletes are effectively employed by their countries, be it as soldiers, border guards or through some kind of sports support system.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#59

Post by EA-3167 »

kgilpin wrote: post #55
a2tech wrote: post #14

This is the reality of building your life around sport—-there’s basically no money in it unless you’re on the extreme edge. I wish people would stop dumping their entire life’s energy into chasing it—-do something more useful like stamping parts out in a factory. Olympic athletes are stunningly focused achievers—I’d love to see that energy and drive applied to something that mattered.

Sports is entertainment. It inspires people and brings joy. It brings people together. It sets positive examples of the rewards that can come from consistent effort and teamwork. Athletes are people making the most of the gifts they’ve been given. This is all laudable.

It certainly shows how much more rewarding it is to work for the IOC, a government, or a corporation than it is to be an Olympian. It shows that being genetically gifted is the primary metric of success in sports (I don't care how hard you work, you aren't ever out-swimming Michael Phelps), and a lot of things bring people together that don't cost $10 billion, most of which is funneled into a bunch of hidden pockets.

Re: Olympians turn to OnlyFans to fund dreams due to 'broken' finance system (2024)

#60

Post by anotherhue »

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #58
anotherhue wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested. If it's a hobby then there's no expected return, so it feels closer to that. I don't begrudge them, and would be in favour of a sensible fixed amount of federal funding, but it ain't a job.

> What is the economic output? Entertainment as far as I can tell. For a few days every four years. That's not a good return on the time invested. I‘d guess the vast majority of Olympians do compete in other events outside the Olympics and do provide more entertainment than just once every four years. The Olympics don‘t pay the bills, but other events do. And many athletes are effectively employed by their countries,…

Having them be fitness advocates or guest trainers in schools etc. sounds ideal.
Post reply on HN