[strken]

Taking a couple of tennis balls to the local park and throwing them with your kids costs about $5, depending on how many you lose. Going for a run along the beach costs a bus fare. You can camp on the weekend for an initial outlay of a few hundred dollars of secondhand gear plus perhaps $40 a trip. Having everyone bring a plate for a potluck dinner costs slightly more than you'd normally spend for a meal.

I think experiences can be as cheap or as expensive as you like. Essentials are the crux of the article, and without essentials most experiences are harder.

[stevage]

Those things aren't what are meant by "paying for an experience". They're paying for the ingredients and DIY the experience.

[MrJohz]

I'm not really sure I see the difference. The point is the experience and how much it costs, whether or not you pay that cost financially or through DIY. And as the previous poster points out, you can get great and life-changing experiences for very little money.

I think what's interesting here is that that's not so true for things. For example, I'm looking into custom ergo keyboards at the moment, and there's lots of off-the-shelf options, but there's also lots of DIY options where you print and solder lots of parts yourself. DIY keyboards tend to be cheaper, but not usually by very much, because fundamentally, the cost of the product is driven by the cost of its constituent parts.

Fundamentally, both things and experiences are driven by supply and demand. Rare experiences that have a low supply but high demand are naturally going to be expensive, just like rare or hard-to-manufacture things. Experiences that can be found everywhere - like throwing a ball around with friends or family - are cheap, just like many common things are.

That said, my intuition would be that the cheapest experiences are pretty much always cheaper than the cheapest things, and the most expensive things (e.g. one-of-a-kind art, rare objects, etc) are generally more expensive than the most expensive experiences.

[stevage]

Well, I think there is a clear difference that I'll try to make clearer. Most people, when they talk about buying an experience, essentially want to do something fairly passive, that is directed by someone else. Like going bungee jumping - pay lots of money, turn up, do as you're told. Or go to a concert - buy tickets, turn up, do as you're told.

As opposed to something like a hike, where you need to contribute a lot of your own decision making and energy into creating the experience. The dollars you spend on food and gear are a bit beside the point.

> Rare experiences that have a low supply but high demand are naturally going to be expensive, just like rare or hard-to-manufacture things.

I don't think the rarity of the experience is relevant. Watching the aurora australis in Australia is rare, but it doesn't cost anything. The cost of experiences is mostly about the labor. Very niche experiences might be expensive because there's a high staff-to-participant ratio, but I wouldn't call that a scarcity cost exactly.

International flights are common but expensive. So are 4 star hotels and fancy meals. And escorts for that matter.

> That said, my intuition would be that the cheapest experiences are pretty much always cheaper than the cheapest things, and the most expensive things (e.g. one-of-a-kind art, rare objects, etc) are generally more expensive than the most expensive experiences.

Probably. Though it gets a bit fuzzy how you define experience. Running for US president is extremely expensive and kind of an "experience". Probably the most expensive genuine experiences you can buy are space tourism trips, which cost in the millions. Although arguably high stakes poker is just an expensive experience for some people.

[mgaunard]

Renting a tennis court will cost you more than 5 dollars, even in a public park.

[Bjartr]

Rent... a tennis court? I've never even heard of such a practice before. You just wait until there's a free court, then use it. I can imagine places where it's exceptionally popular and the perfect weather where a rental system would be viable, but I'm curious if it's the norm in places.

[happyraul]

This is a very US-centric view, where public subsidies for tennis courts exist. In Germany for example, there's no such thing as a public tennis court, as far as I can tell.

[Bjartr]

Do parks in Germany have basketball courts, football pitches, or baseball diamonds? Is it that parks provide for sports that's US centric, or is it including tennis courts in that set of amenities that's US centric?

[poulsbohemian]

There was definitely a public basketball court and a football pitch within a few blocks of where I lived in suburban Münster. So can't speak for all of Germany, but there are some public spaces for the common sports in that country.

[gnicholas]

In Menlo Park, you have to pay something like $50/yr to get a key to the courts. The key price is higher if you live outside the city limits, in unincorporated Menlo Park (I assume because you're not paying city taxes). Fortunately there are unlocked courts in Palo Alto.

[ben_w]

You don't need a tennis court unless you're getting serious. I used to play cricket with apples[0]. As a kid I always had more fun from freeform play than from rules.

(Also strken wrote "throw" so I think they were thinking of a game of catch).

[0] Not sure which exactly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus — unless they've been replaced since I was a kid, the ones on the right as you leave the cul-de-sac: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bsdmAm5cXtDyxwYy9?g_st=ic

[mgaunard]

You're being surprisingly overly specific with those tree links.

[supermatt]

The wikipedia link is for the apple tree genus. The word generic literally comes from the word genus, i.e. they couldn't be less specific when talking about apples.

[ben_w]

In fairness, my other link was to a Google street view image of (possibly) the actual trees from which the apples fell in c. 1993.

[kasey_junk]

There are dozens of public tennis courts within a 5 minute walk from my house that are all free all the time.

I’m sort of shocked to hear they aren’t free everywhere. Which park system charges for tennis?

[chii]

The one where there's too many people for two few courts.

[hef19898]

Oh, the horror of interacting with other people and not being priviledged enough to cut the waiting line!

[poulsbohemian]

I think this is just an unfortunately reality of almost any public resource... my community just built a new pickleball complex, but there is still an opportunity for a private pickleball club that has an indoor space. Government is constantly caught in the middle trying to provide resources while also controlling costs and not wanting any project to look like a boondoggle or overspend.

[johnnyanmac]

I could look harder, but I think my local parks only have basketball courts and a large field. The biggest park in my town has a baseball field. Never had a public access tennis court.

There are tennis courts in town, but they tend to be part of clubs or whatnot, similar to golf courses. Not public parks.

[calderknight]

Do you live in a densely populated area? There are free ones where I live too but I guess it might be different in the middle of a large city.

[kasey_junk]

I am in Chicago

[mgaunard]

Why is your local government paying for construction and maintenance of tennis courts if they're not being used?

[MrJohz]

I think they mean "free" here in the sense of "not costing any money".

[mgaunard]

"all free all the time" implies there is no one using them.

[ndriscoll]

Or they're always free of charge. I'm also used to there being dozens of free public tennis courts all over town, in multiple parts of the US, in both public parks and schools. I believe even the local private schools have courts that are open to the public.

[kasey_junk]

There is no time when my local parks charge for using tennis courts.

[lotsofpulp]

The government does not have to charge for tennis courts, it simply has to have too few of them.

[mcv]

> Renting a tennis court will cost you more than 5 dollars, even in a public park.

A great example of how even similar experiences can cost whatever you want to pay. You can throw some balls for free or rent a tennis court to do it. Some rich people rent an entire venue for themselves when they go out. You can camp in some nearby woods or go on safari in Africa. Experiences cost however much you want to pay for them. Exclusivity though, that's expensive.

[j4yav]

Why would you need to rent a tennis court to throw balls with your kids though?

[johnnyanmac]

I think baseballs or Footballs (both American and normal) would have been a better metaphor. tennis balls have this odd air resistance to them that make them less satifying to throw with your hands. Which makes sense, since they are designed to be whacked with a racket.

[j4yav]

Neither of those need you to rent anything to throw around either, though, as far as I know.