The Brief

It may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that 2024 was the year the music festival died. A wave of festivals has been unplugging their microphones and telling pass holders, “Sorry!”

Desert Daze, a psychedelic rock fest in Southern California; Sierra Nevada World Music Festival, a reggae fest in Northern California; Kickoff Jam, a country music festival in Florida; Blue Ridge Rock Festival in Virginia; Sudden Little Thrills, a multi-genre festival in Pittsburgh; Float Fest in Austin; the list of recent cancellations goes on and on.

And it’s not just America. In Europe, festival after festival — from Lollapalooza Paris to the Sideways Festival in Helsinki — has announced cancellations for this year or forever. By one count, there were over 60 music festivals canceled in the UK this year alone. In Australia, so many festivals were canceled that one magazine there recently asked, “Are the nation's music festivals extinct?”

Meanwhile, even some big name festivals that used to sell out in minutes struggled to sell tickets this year. Burning Man failed to sell out for the first time in over a decade. Coachella, which is the most-attended annual music festival in North America, saw a decline of around 15% in ticket sales this year compared to last.

Jai Wolf performs at the Sahara tent during the 2023 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival on April 16

(

Matt Winkelmeyer

/

Getty Images for Coachella

)

Call it the festival recession. What’s driving it? There are the predictable culprits: surging production costs, high ticket prices, and consumer demand dropping harder than an EDM beat. But the festival slump may also be driven by factors that are more thought-provoking: technological changes in music listenership and a generation of kids who may lack the same enthusiasm for festivals as generations past.

The year the music fest died

In the decade before the pandemic, music festivals saw something of a renaissance. “New music festivals are popping up more quickly than you can count in the U.S.,” wrote The Associated Press back in 2013. Events like Coachella were doing so well that they were adding more days to their lineups. This fest of fests during the 2010s was so incredible that some questioned whether there was a festival bubble.

The pandemic obviously hit festivals hard, ending the boom. But, when the crisis subsided, consumers were flush with cash and pent-up demand for social activities seemed to help many festivals make a roaring comeback.

While there were the rumblings of trouble last year, it was really this year when the music stopped for many festivals.

Before we get to the more interesting explanations for the festival slump, we have to name the most obvious culprit: rising costs in this era of inflation. Portapotties, security, equipment, energy, food, concessions, merch, insurance, artist pay — expenses for producing these festivals have climbed faster than a drug-addled singer up the scaffolding of a soundstage.

Will Page is the former chief economist of Spotify and one of the rare economists who focuses on the music industry. He calls himself a “rockonomist.” Page recently published an analysis of the music festival downturn in the UK.

Putting on a festival, Page says, involves investing an incredible amount upfront with only the hope that ticket sales and other revenue sources will allow investors to recoup costs. It’s a big reason why music festivals are a notoriously risky business with low profit margins. In fact, many independent festivals are run by nonprofits that don’t make a profit at all. It’s easy to see why rising costs could cause more mayhem than a mosh pit.

During the boom years, many festivals jacked up their ticket prices. Since 2014, general admission prices for major music festivals have increased by 55%, according to an analysis conducted by FinanceBuzz. That far outpaced the overall rate of inflation during the same time period.

Page says that more recently, however, many festival promoters — perhaps recognizing softening demand — have been reluctant to raise prices enough to cover exploding costs. “I would imagine that promoters are a little bit risk averse not to push price too far [because] we're coming outta the pandemic,” Page says. “They’re like, ‘Let's get them back into fields, jumping up and down to Mr. Brightside by The Killers.’ But that hesitancy on price is then offset by this explosion in production costs, and that's where they've been caught in the crossfire.” Many festivals are clearly having trouble making the numbers work and are being forced to cancel.

Due to cost of living increases and higher interest rates, many of the usual festival goers are tightening their belts and refusing to fork over as much money for expensive festival tickets and all the accompanying costs of attending them. We’re also seeing similar downturns in other leisure and hospitality sectors, including theme parks, air travel, hotel chains, and Airbnb.

This decline in spending on experiences has obviously created a problem for many festivals, but in this particular market there’s an interesting wrinkle. The boom years may have led to festival oversaturation, with too many festivals competing for consumer dollars.

This has all, Page says, created a situation that he calls “a race to the top.” Consumers are reducing the number of live music events they go to and choosing to only go to their top priorities, the crème de la crème. So they may go to something like Coachella or a Taylor Swift or Beyoncé concert, but they’re choosing not to go to less sexy live events. In addition to many festivals facing financial problems, musicians like The Black Keys and Jennifer Lopez have struggled to sell concert tickets and canceled their tours.

Live music looks like it has become more of a winner-take-all market. The big dogs in the industry seem to be doing fine. Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster and is the largest live entertainment company in the world, says they’re still seeing strong demand at their live music events. But they acknowledge that many festivals are experiencing financial troubles.

“The live entertainment market is highly competitive, and we’re currently seeing many artists prioritize touring over festivals, with amphitheaters, arenas, and stadium shows performing at record levels,” says a spokesperson for Live Nation. “While some festivals face challenges with rising production, insurance, and talent costs, we’ve found that festivals — both large and small — that offer great locations, talent, and a clear identity are thriving.”

Streaming and the anxious generation

Page, the former chief economist of Spotify, hypothesizes that the rise of music streaming and algorithmic playlists may be reducing demand for certain kinds of music festivals, especially diverse, multi-genre ones.

Despite the fact that streaming services offer consumers unlimited access to virtually the entire library of recorded music, algorithms, he argues, are siphoning music listeners more and more into niche “echo chambers,” where the new stuff they listen to is similar to the stuff they already listen to.

Historically, radio stations and MTV and music magazines and blogs may have exposed music listeners to a wider, more diverse range of new music. With algorithms playing a more homogenizing force on musical tastes, Page argues, consumers may be less into big music festivals filled with a bunch of artists from different genres they may have never heard of.

“So if I look at a multi-genre festival poster and I see all these different bands of all these different styles, my gut reaction is, ‘That's a playlist that's been created for somebody else,’” Page says.

That said, many single-genre festivals seem to be struggling too.

The most compelling argument Page makes: a generational change may be affecting demand for music festivals. Teenagers and early twentysomethings have historically been the core age demographics for festival-going. But this stream of new ticket buyers may be more of a trickle than it was in the past.

During the festival boom between roughly 2010 and 2020, one leading explanation was that millennials, then mostly in their teens and twenties, preferred spending on experiences rather than on things. They liked going places. They liked socializing. They liked drinking booze and doing drugs. They liked hooking up.

A vintage overview of the set up for Burning Man in the desert at a location known as Black Rock City.

(

Scott Nelson

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Not to get all “kids these days,” but kids these days… Research finds that Gen Z drinks less alcohol. They do fewer drugs. They have less sex and fewer partners. And they’re lonelier. In his best-selling book, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has famously labeled them “the anxious generation.” Haidt argues that Gen Z is spending too much time on social media and playing with their phones — and it’s making them less social and more isolated and depressed.

In a similar vein, Page argues social media and also the legacy of pandemic lockdowns and school closures a few years ago have made young people more socially atomized. And so, Gen Z, he suggests, may be less amped about going to music festivals — an intensely social activity — than previous generations.

Festivals are for IRL friends

Investigating why so many festivals are struggling, Page and his colleagues recently conducted a survey in the UK. They asked young people why they were not going to festivals. “And one of the most popular responses we got from that audience was, ‘I didn't think I had a friend I could go with,’” Page says. Sad!

In Australia, where we have some data, the number of young adults attending festivals fell “from 41% of all ticket buyers in 2018-19, to 27% in 2022-23,” according to a report from the Australian Associated Press. Australians in their mid-to-late twenties are now the largest demographic of ticket buyers, not younger adolescents.

Meanwhile, many millennials, who drove the festival boom last decade, are now older and have young kids and family and career obligations. They are less likely to want to attend multi-day festivals, which often involve standing in the hot sun, immersing yourself in swarms of people partying hard, and sleeping in the dirt.

Interestingly, some of the storied, big-name festivals that arguably cater more to older generations seem to be doing fine. For example, the Newport Jazz Festival, which celebrated its 70th anniversary this year, easily sold out all three days.

Despite the slump, the reality is there will always be a market for rocking out at music festivals. The crucial question for promoters these days: how big will that market actually be? Many festivals are now having to, um, face the music and realize it's maybe not as big as it used to be.
Copyright 2024 NPR

Only two Democratic lawmakers voted against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal last year curtailing healthcare for undocumented immigrants. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo was one them.

Now, Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, is proposing legislation that would reverse many of those immigrant healthcare cuts and reinstate Medi-Cal eligibility for all income-qualifying residents regardless of citizenship.

Senate Bill 1422 would ensure that all immigrant adults age 19 and older could enroll in Medi-Cal. It would not reverse limits placed on dental benefits that last year’s state budget included, nor would it eliminate the $30 monthly premium required of the same population starting in July 2027. The state budget last year did not cut benefits for children without legal status.

“We are no healthier as a community than the person least able to access care. When we accept a two-tier healthcare system, we borrow trouble,” Durazo said Monday.

Durazo argues that immigrants without legal status contribute billions in taxes each year and many of them now cannot benefit from programs those dollars support. The state spends about $12 billion annually on immigrant health care.

A shrinking budget, a growing fight

Whether Newsom will sign such a measure is unclear but seemingly unlikely. Grappling with a deficit for the fourth straight year — even as revenue grows — Newsom has already proposed cuts to other programs. Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for the governor, said his office would not comment on Durazo’s legislation.

His January budget proposal made few changes to the state’s Medi-Cal program, which enrolls more than 14 million Californians, but it underscored the ongoing fiscal challenges. One major threat comes from President Donald Trump’s federal tax reform package, which imposed new limits on the provider taxes that nearly every state uses to support their low-income healthcare programs. California’s tax on health insurers is particularly large, generating about $7 billion annually for the general fund — a figure that the state finance department estimates will decrease to about $6 million next year.

Medi-Cal spending has nearly doubled to $200 billion during Newsom’s two terms, adding to the state’s structural deficit, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. That amount includes about $119 billion in federal dollars.

Both Democrats and Republicans criticize Newsom’s handling of healthcare for immigrants without legal status. Republicans blame Newsom’s gradual expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility to immigrants for the program’s growing costs. Democrats are angry he partially reversed course, and some also take issue with his most recent budget proposal, which they say would needlessly extend some federal Medicaid cuts.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, has introduced a bill that would bar the state from imposing federal work requirements on enrollees whose healthcare is paid for solely with state funds, a group that includes immigrants without legal status. State officials estimate work requirements will cause roughly 2 million Californians to lose Medi-Cal largely due to administrative hurdles.

The fight over healthcare spending has become one of the defining issues heading into this fall’s elections.

The state’s largest healthcare labor union is pushing a billionaire’s tax to raise revenue for healthcare, a measure that has drawn opposition from Silicon Valley’s wealthy elite and divided state Democrats. Meanwhile, party leaders are also trying to unseat a number of vulnerable congressional Republicans, including Rep. David Valadao whose Central Valley district has the highest share of Medicaid recipients in the country.

More Californians filed claims for paid family leave last year than ever before since the state started offering the benefits two decades ago.

In 2025, more than 355,600 workers in the state took time to care for a sick family member or bond with a new child, up 16% from the year before, according to data LAist requested from the California Employment Development Department.

That change coincided with increased payments for workers who use paid leave. Workers in California can get up to eight weeks of paid leave — and now recoup 70–90% of their regular wages, up from 60–70% the year prior.

“The program continues to grow,” said Anne Chapuis, a spokesperson for EDD. While she said 2025 represents their largest year to date, the rise or fall of claims “can sometimes be attributed to a combination of factors including awareness, demand, and eligibility.”

California became the first state to enact a paid family leave program in 2004. At the time, workers only got 55% of their wages and six weeks of paid leave.

Jenya Cassidy, executive director of the advocacy group California Work & Family Coalition, said her organization is still working to understand why there’s a rise in claims, but have anecdotally heard of people taking it because of the increase. The group co-sponsored the 2022 legislation that increase payments, after hearing that many low-income earners couldn’t afford to take leave. Research has shown that paid family leave benefits help a mother and baby’s health.

“Sixty percent of their income wasn't enough to pay their bills, and so many people are living on the edge in this state especially,” Cassidy said.

She said there was also more publicity about the paid family leave program last year because of the payment increase.

“There was a little bit of hubbub about this wage replacement [increase], so I do think raising awareness about the affordability of taking it is a key thing,” she said. “People hearing it anecdotally, seeing it in the news, I think that kind of has an impact.”

The state Employment Development Department says the paid family leave program, which started in 2004, continues to grow.

(

EDD

)

There are also cultural and general shifts around family leave, said Jessica Mason, senior policy analyst for economic justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

“For millennials and Gen Z, there's a little bit more of an assumption that everybody's going to be doing caregiving, everybody's going to be involved in parenting, and those norms do kind of shift over time,” she said.

For example, more dads in California are taking paid leave time, recent state data show.

Mason recently worked on a report that found 1 in 3 private sector workers nationwide now have access to a paid family leave program, with 14 states having paid family leave laws. But because California is such a big state, it plays a huge role in that statistic, she said. The program covers more than 18 million residents.

“In California, about 97% of the private sector workforce is potentially eligible for paid leave … that's really at the top end of all of the states,” she said.

How the state's paid family leave program works

The family leave program in California is paid through the State Disability Insurance program. Workers pay into the program through a deduction on their paycheck usually labeled as “CADSI.”

To be eligible for paid family leave in California, a worker needs to have earned at least $300 in wages in a “base period” (5-18 months before a claim).

Eligible workers who make less than about $66,000 a year can get 90% of their wages, and workers who make above that recieve 70% while on leave.

For the first time since Los Angeles County began tracking the data, fewer unhoused residents died on the streets in 2024, according to a report released Tuesday.

About 2,208 people experiencing homelessness died in the county that year, 300 fewer than the previous year, according to the report from the county Department of Public Health.

The report also showed the mortality rate — which is the number of deaths per 100,000 unhoused residents — decreased by 10%.

Health officials credit drug overdose prevention efforts for some of that decline, including greater distribution of naloxone, a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose.

There was a 21% decrease in the drug overdose death rate among unhoused residents, according to the report.

Still, an average of six people experiencing homelessness died each day in L.A. County throughout 2024. People without stable housing face mortality rates over four times higher than the general population.

Authorities note that number is still too high.

"These disparities reflect systemic barriers — lack of safe housing, limited access to culturally responsive healthcare, unsafe environments, and the ongoing effects of trauma, discrimination, and social inequities," Barbara Ferrer, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health, wrote in the report.

She said she expects the work to get harder, with major state and regional funding reductions to some homeless services this year.

“Just as we are beginning to see positive momentum on homeless mortality reduction, we are at risk of losing precious ground,” Ferrer continued.

County health officials made several recommendations in the report, including providing more access to shelter and housing, mental health and substance use treatment services.

Drug overdose deaths 

The annual report relies on state death records, county medical examiner data and population estimates from the region’s annual point-in-time homeless count.

More than 75,000 people were estimated to be experiencing homelessness in L.A. County in 2024, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s official count that year.

Despite some decreases, drug overdose remained the leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County and accounted for 40% of all deaths among that population.

In 2024, 884 unhoused people died of drug overdoses in L.A. County. That was down from 1,140 deaths in 2023, according to the report.

Unhoused residents were 46 times more likely to die of drug overdose than the general population. The report notes the overdose death rate is still about twice as high as it was in 2019.

Many of the deaths involved fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, but for the first time they accounted for a lower percentage than in the previous year — 59% in 2024 and 70% in 2023, according to the data.

Most overdose deaths involve multiple drugs, according to the county. The percentage of deaths in which methamphetamine was a factor remained relatively steady — 80% in 2024 and 79% in 2023.

Overdose deaths involving only methamphetamine rose from 19% in 2023 to 27% in 2024.

Other causes of death

The Public Health Department is tracking other leading causes of death for unhoused residents. In 2024, the rates for coronary heart disease and homicide among unhoused Angelenos went down, while transportation-related deaths and suicides went up.

• Coronary heart disease: The second leading cause of death among L.A. County’s unhoused population continued to be coronary heart disease, which accounted for 14% of unhoused deaths in 2024. The previous year, it was 15%.
  
• Transportation-related deaths: Traffic-related injury remained the third leading cause of death among all unhoused L.A. County residents, accounting for 11% of those fatalities. That’s up from 8% the previous year. After a two-year plateau, the traffic injury mortality rate increased by 25% to 315 deaths per 100,000 unhoused people. About 230 unhoused pedestrians or cyclists were killed in traffic collisions in 2024. They were 24 times more likely to die from traffic-related injuries than the overall L.A. County population.
  
• Homicide: Homicide was the fourth leading cause of death among unhoused people in L.A. County in 2024. That year, 105 unhoused people were victims of homicide, according to county data. That’s compared to 124 the previous year. Unhoused Angelenos were 14 times more likely to die by homicide than the general population.
  
• Suicide: The suicide rate among L.A.’s homeless population increased by 21% in 2024. County data show 80 unhoused L.A. County residents died by suicide in 2024. That was 4% of all recorded deaths among unhoused residents, up from 3% the previous year. Unhoused residents were 13 times more likely to die by suicide than Angelenos in general.

Public Health recommendations

The Department of Public Health made several recommendations to prevent premature deaths and continue slowing the mortality rate among unhoused people in the region.

They included:

• Ensuring access to affordable housing and health insurance.
• Ensuring that housing options support harm reduction, overdose prevention and substance use treatment.
• Expanding comprehensive primary and preventive care services for unhoused people.
• Conducting a detailed analysis of 2024 traffic injury deaths among unhoused residents to inform policy interventions. 

Read the full report here.