As thousands of people remain unable to leave the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert after heavy rains inundated their campsites with ankle-deep mud Saturday, authorities say they are investigating a death at the event.

Attendees were told to shelter in place in the Black Rock Desert and conserve food, water and fuel after a rainstorm swamped the area, forcing officials to halt any entering or leaving of the festival.

The remote area in northwest Nevada was hit with 2 to 3 months worth of rain – up to 0.8 inches – in just 24 hours between Friday and Saturday mornings. The heavy rainfall fell on dry desert grounds, whipping up thick, clay-like mud that festivalgoers say is too difficult to walk or bike through.

  • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I used to run in a party crowd that had a LOT of burning man folks in it. There were a couple of them that had middle class incomes, maybe even leaning upper middle class. Those are usually the ones that had an art car or whatever that they sank some money into, instead of the crap that most upper middle class Americans blow their money on.

    But the rest of them? They worked at restaurants, did massage therapy, teachers, etc. normal people with median or lower incomes that would forego other expenses to set aside a little a money for their annual get high in the desert trip.

    Yes, there’s a bunch of elitists at the core of the event, but it’s not the majority.

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        TLDR: The trend of wealthy people is going up while the less wealthy trends down.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The other takeaway is that more than half the attendees make more than 100k a year so not exactly a minority.

          • Coreidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            100k salary is a decent amount of money but it’s far as fuck from being “rich”.

            • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It might be a perspective thing, and how you both define “rich”.

              If someone gets by every week on ramen, a salary of $100k/year would seem like a crap ton of money. Doubly so if most of their community is also living off of ramen. One year on that salary alone would be life changing for this person.

              If someone lives in a pricy area and maybe has a few kids, a salary of $100k wouldn’t seem like nearly as much. Doubly so if most of their community makes that much. One year on that salary is just another year for this person.

              For some people, “rich” is not having to worry about starving and knowing that they have a roof over their head. It’s about finally being able to buy non-necessities, and it’s about being able to have things just for enjoyment. Some people are very month to month in terms of costs and bills.

              To others, “rich” is being able to buy expensive boats and cars. It’s about having excess wealth and never having to worry about any monetary problems. These people might think of millionaires and billionaires when they hear the word “rich”.

              Of course some people would consider $100k/year rich. I’m certain that MANY people would take that salary boost in a heartbeat.

              I’m not saying that $100k would set you up anywhere near as much as $1m would, but it’s a hell of a lot more money than many people can make.

              In 10 years, that salary is $1,000,000. For someone making $50k/year, it would take 20 years for them to make that much. For someone making $25k/year, it would take 40 years for them to earn that much. I would feel disingenuous telling someone who makes $25k/year that making $100k wouldn’t be becoming “rich” to them.

              Maybe that’s their monetary sweet spot, and they rely on other things to finish fulfilling their personal definition of “rich”. Family, friends, hobbies, etc.

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              34
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If 100k isn’t rich to you then you have lived an exceptionally blessed life. Also “more than” doesn’t mean all of them are making exactly 100k

                • underisk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  22
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Tell that to people making less than 30k and describe the look they give you

                  • bassomitron@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    21
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    100k in a place like NYC is literally living like someone making 30-45k in some rural town.

                  • njm1314@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    As one of those people you are presuming to speak for, no, I wouldn’t consider 100k rich. I find that to be an absurd statement.

              • socsa@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Bro, median household income in the US is almost $80k. It’s not 1998 anymore.

              • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                True for one person but this is household income. A married couple both making $50k would fall into this. While that is definitely not poor by any means. I think it is fair to say that it would be a bit of a stretch to call a person in the us today making $50k “rich.”

                  • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    What do you mean? The article that was pulling the data used “household income” as the data set… It is exclusively talking about household income.

        • Screeslope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          People tend to acquire wealth over time? There is a solid correlation between wealth and age, so this shouldn’t be surprising in the least. And especially those who had time/energy to spare to attend festivals earlier are especially predisposed for acquiring now wealth down the line. Assuming that they return over the years, all of this is pretty much to be expected.

      • Youthless@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        —In 2013, the median age of burners was 32, and in 2022, it was 37.

        My take away was that it seems like it is the same people going every year: they are getting older and richer, because that is what happens over time.

      • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        10 months ago

        Even if they had checked the weather, would they have known 0.8 inches of rainfall translates into being stranded in the desert and possible death? I’ve never been to BM or spent time in a desert so this is news to me. Were people warning about this and attendees just ignored it?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yes. You need to stay out of the desert if there is any rainfall. That is basic knowledge you should know before going out there.

        • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s a fair point, but at the same time the desert is well known for being the harshest of all environments on earth. It’s surprising so many people treat it like just a drive to the store.

          • Sarsaparilla@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeh I don’t understand it either. I’m from Australia. Driving into a desert sounds like a pretty dangerous thing to do, no matter what the weather forecast is.

        • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Nah they know rain turns everything into quicksand. But it doesn’t create a situation more lethal than daily life there.

      • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        And done what exactly??

        It rains there sometimes. Forecasts change wildly day to day regardless. But it’s a desert and the water typically evaporates so quickly that an hour later there’s no evidence it rained.

        Not to mention, it’s unlikely the person died from being trapped in the rain. I’m not sure why the article mentions both things except to give news about the event conditions I guess.