Is Science As Important As Football? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#21

Post by jacoblyles » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 8:45 PM UTC

alexgartrell wrote: post #11

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

From the point of view of the average taxpayer, deliverables on space missions are too few and far between. When you build an arena (even for non mainstream sport), you make money off of taxing the Franchise, but more substantially off of the local businesses that opened up to serve the fans of the team. Over priced beer, food, and jerseys can make a lot of money if there's a well-liked team behind it all. Plus, peop…

There is an eternal tension between elite opinion's love for democracy and its distaste for the tastes of the common man. (We, on the right side of the education and income bell curves, qualify as "elites").

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#22

Post by param » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 9:32 PM UTC

I thought the title was flamebait. ARE YOU KIDDING! science is more important than football. But once I went through the article, he does make some valid points.

I just wish that he hadn't inserted so many pics from his new book - now the article smells of a sales job. His argument should stand independent of his book

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#23

Post by ckinnan » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 9:58 PM UTC

alexgartrell wrote: post #11

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

From the point of view of the average taxpayer, deliverables on space missions are too few and far between. When you build an arena (even for non mainstream sport), you make money off of taxing the Franchise, but more substantially off of the local businesses that opened up to serve the fans of the team. Over priced beer, food, and jerseys can make a lot of money if there's a well-liked team behind it all. Plus, peop…

This is wrong. A number of economic studies show that taxpayer-funded stadiums reallocate dollars, they don't help local business on net-- they just increase the value of the sports team.

https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/302 http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf

Teams and regional pride would still exist without taxpayer-funded stadiums.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#24

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:27 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #12

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must…

Your numbers are essentially right. Most hockey teams share the basketball stadium, though, and almost all soccer stadiums are shared. But stadium costs are rising: both the new Yankee Stadium and the new Cowboys Stadium cost over $1 billion.

However, what makes your numbers very conservative (in terms of overestimating public costs) is that few stadia are fully funded by the public. Most of them are partially funded by the team or the league.

(Amusing notes: Montreal's stadium, built for the Olympics and used by the Expos, cost 1.4 billion dollars, but .9 billion was in interest. The world's most expensive stadium, the new Wembley, cost 1.5 billion.)

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#25

Post by aaronblohowiak » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:28 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #12

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must…

There is also added infrastructure cost, police cost and more. But you're right that the football budget is less than the Space budget. But why is ANY public money being spent on personal entertainment when it could be spent on progress? another 4 billion a year could pay for a lot of research and scholarships.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#26

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 10:30 PM UTC

ckinnan wrote: post #23

alexgartrell wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the point of view of the average taxpayer, deliverables on space missions are too few and far between. When you build an arena (even for non mainstream sport), you make money off of taxing the Franchise, but more substantially off of the local businesses that opened up to serve the fans of the team. Over priced beer, food, and jerseys can make a lot of money if there's a well-liked team behind it all. Plus, peop…

This is wrong. A number of economic studies show that taxpayer-funded stadiums reallocate dollars, they don't help local business on net-- they just increase the value of the sports team. https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/302 http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf Teams and regional pride would still exist without taxpayer-funded stadiums.

Perhaps, but the taxes are usually focused on tourism (hotel and auto rental taxes), which is the sector that is helped the most by new stadia.

Also consider the loss of business that happens when a team leaves, such as when the Seattle Supersonics left for Oklahoma City. Even if there isn't a net gain for building a new stadium, there may be a local gain at another city's expense, such as between Seattle and Oklahoma City.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#27

Post by jerf » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 11:35 PM UTC

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #25

ajross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must…

There is also added infrastructure cost, police cost and more. But you're right that the football budget is less than the Space budget. But why is ANY public money being spent on personal entertainment when it could be spent on progress? another 4 billion a year could pay for a lot of research and scholarships.

The government doesn't give all of its money to space exploration (or other worthy causes) and spends money on entertainment for the same reason you don't give all your money to space exploration (or other worthy causes) and spend some money (including time) on entertainment.

The only way that could happen is if we, as a species, could somehow dedicate all of our time to "worthy pursuits", but we can't. We need downtime and entertainment, and by "need", I mean, need.

My first paragraph is not sarcastic. It really is the same reason, just writ large.

(This argument is one layer of "why?" beyond the more obvious, but less interesting, point that these stadiums get built because they pull enough in tax revenues in to justify it, or at least so the municipalities assume.)

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#28

Post by noonespecial » Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 12:24 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #12

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must…

I needled the stadiums because they were an easy target. Its more of a philosophic rant stemming from a disappointment in overall resource allocation. We spend so many trillions on entertainment like football. We use our land, our human capital, our tv transmitters, our precious time... on giant zero-sum distractions. Our heroes play games.

Space flight is life. Will the last humans have to admit that we didn't make it off the planet in time to save our species because we were too busy watching football and getting drunk?

Even if we never "make it to the stars", there are countless worlds of resources just floating around in asteroid fields in our own solar system. We just have to go get them. I'm not advocating we go "all work and no play" here, I just can't help but think we should be trying a little bit harder.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#29

Post by ibsulon » Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 12:59 AM UTC

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #25

ajross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must…

There is also added infrastructure cost, police cost and more. But you're right that the football budget is less than the Space budget. But why is ANY public money being spent on personal entertainment when it could be spent on progress? another 4 billion a year could pay for a lot of research and scholarships.

Have you ever heard of "bread and circuses?"

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#30

Post by bowman » Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 1:28 AM UTC

bgutierrez wrote: post #19

My middle school was willing to make us play frisbee dodgeball (with the expected results), and then spent millions tearing apart a couple of classrooms after some kids dropped mercury on the floor and stomped on it. I think Phys. Ed. would be a good target level for danger in the classroom.

To contrast, at my school a teacher dropped a bottle of mercury while showing us how it ran away from heat. They cleaned it up with a mop while we played with it.