this is something i saw at another online place not believing it … but apparently by the time shes finished her tour will have added 4-6 billion to the us economy pretty much by itself …is that record? I don’t remember anyone else getting those numbers not even during the Michael Jackson “King of pop” days …
I’m not convinced that she “added” $4.6 billion dollars to the economy. People may have spent that much on her tours, but it was money that would have likely been spent somewhere else, on something else, if she hadn’t toured – if they hadn’t gone to see Swift in Chicago, for example, they would have spent that money elsewhere.
It may have had an economic boost to the specific cities and venues, but I’m not at all convinced that it “created” economic growth to the nation’s economy as a whole.
Not necessarily. I assume a whole lot of hotels, travel, meals and clothing went on credit cards that otherwise wouldn’t have been charged. Just because I’m willing to take on $2,000 in debt for some ‘once in a lifetime’ event doesn’t mean I’d otherwise be willing to take on $2k in debt. I’d just go about my normal life.
I’m not sure that, from an economic perspective, that would count as “creation.” But, I may be incorrect. Even if you put the expense on a credit card, rather than paying cash, it’s still coming out of your income (just later, instead of now).
IANA Economist, but AFAICT economic growth is basically an increase in the production of goods and services within an economy.
If a Taylor Swift concert tour is generating venue bookings and ticket sales and merch sales and auxiliary expenditures like travel tickets and meal purchases and employment of extra venue staff and so on, then yeah, that sounds like an increase in the production of goods and services.
Just because people still have to pay for those expenditures with their own money doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t count as economic growth. Apparently some fans will even work a side-hustle job to get extra money for concert tickets, which I think anybody would agree contributes to increase in production.
A LOT of these “economic impact” numbers are anally extracted. By people with a strong agenda to make the number as unassailably favorable as possible.
You will find that every sports team owner who ever wanted to have the taxpayers buy them a shiny stadium will trot out projections of “economic impact” showing how the stadium “pays for itself” in extra local business created. Plenty of studies done after that fact say it’s simply not true, even for successful teams that draw the hoped-for crowds.
All that happens is the same aggregate consumer spending is redistributed. It’s a great windfall if you own the tavern near the new ballpark. But otherwise the stadium is just moving the economic activity toothpaste around in the local economy tube.
Turning back to Swift specifically …
@Kimstu is totally right that in the course of delivering the tour goods & services were produced and bought that would not otherwise have been. The big question, as @kenobi_65 almost asks, is which other goods and services were not bought by the business and consumer spending that went towards Swift’s concerts instead of whatever else they might have bought.
Whether or not somebody paid cash or credit is a red herring; the bill’s gonna get paid eventually. @Kimstu makes an excellent point that to the degree workers work overtime or side hustles to generate extra money to spend on Swift that represents incremental production of something. But who is the entity that wanted to buy that incremental production? Just because you want to e.g. drive for Uber tonight so you can pay for Swift merch, that doesn’t create a customer for you. Instead you’re poaching the same customers from the other Uber drivers in your town at that time.
Now what IS true is that the locations where an event occurs will see a focused flow of additional money coming in from out of town. For a few days.
Anecdotally; earlier this year I saw that a standup comedian who I enjoy was going to be coming to Seattle, and I was interested in going to see him. I don’t own a car, so for me seeing a show in Seattle usually means staying overnight at a hotel, and when I went to Expedia to find a room for that night, I discovered that all the hotels in downtown that are usually in the $100-$150 per night range were charging closer to $700-800. Turned out the show I wanted to go to was the same night Tay-Tay was in town and so every single hotel in the Puget Sound metropolis was charging as close to the state-mandated legal maximum as they thought they could get away with.
Point is, certain businesses in the towns she plays in DEFINITELY bring in a lot more money than usual when she comes around.
As was touched upon, the amount of merchandise sold must have been gigantic. People not even attending the shows bought lots of Swift gear. My WAG is that many millions of dollars were spent on that stuff that otherwise would not have been spent.
Would you care to expand on this? Do you think that she got all of that money or perhaps it was that tens of thousands of employees and businesses owners also benefited?
Nowadays nearly everyone of an age to have attended Woodstock in 1969 says they were there. Despite the much smaller number who really were.
Now through the magic of the internet, you can have a $50 t-shirt that says you attended a $600/ticket concert in person. They’re going to sell a lot of those shirts. And already have.