or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › WWYD? State Fair ethics question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WWYD? State Fair ethics question - Page 5

post #81 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by caspian's mama View Post
"we the people" have almost unlimited power when we take matters into our own hands.
Is there really such a right to entertainment extras as this? I mean, breaking the rules for the greater good as in "hell no I won't give up my seat on the bus for that white guy," sure ... civil disobedience has its rightful place, be it for reasonable access to resources or simple human dignity. But for free dvds and cheap fair tickets?
post #82 of 112
Quote:
yeah, that's the excuse huge media conglomerates like to use in those lame anti-piracy commercials.
This is what *I* am telling you as someone who spent years working in retail and often not getting raises because our loss was so high. Neither lipgloss nor entertianment are things you have any kind of right to.
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by caspian's mama View Post
yeah, that's the excuse huge media conglomerates like to use in those lame anti-piracy commercials. if the corporations actually gave a damn about their workers, it wouldn't be an issue. the reason we're seeing so many of those stupid commercials now is because enough people are doing it to cause a shudder through hollywood. maybe if enough people started swapping county fair wristbands the state would lower the prices. "we the people" have almost unlimited power when we take matters into our own hands.
So wristband swapping would stop when they lower the prices?

I think it's much more likely that wristband swapping would drive the prices up, as the organizers would be able to control the price but cannot control the wristband swapping.
post #84 of 112
I just want to say that as to the OP, not the worst most horrible violation of rules and ethics ever, could even be reasonably considered a bit of a good deed. Now if the OP had decided to sell her armband for half price, THAT would be some major poo. As a cashier, I pitched in a few pennies when some kid can't come up with enough money for her bubble bath and I have looked the other way when the person in front of me manages to score an unexplained free drink from the machine. I don't *think* I'm going to petty theft hell

But all in all, I just don't get the attitude that if I want something, I can just take it if I think someone is charging too much. My *edited because heaven forbid someone who knows me in real life figure this out* has this attitude and he's nothing but a small time thug. He will happily extend his "theory" to include the cash someone leaves out in the open or the cell phone he can see sticking out of your purse and really, it's hard for me to see it much differently. Taking something because you don't want to pay is theft, especially if that thing is not in any way a NEED.
post #85 of 112
Haven't read all replies yet...

I'd do something like that too. And have before.

Off topic: And we went to the NM state fair too! We had a blast Especially loved seeing the animals in the 4-H section. Those baby dwarf Nigerian goats are so adorable!
post #86 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Those baby dwarf Nigerian goats are so adorable!
Weren't they??!! My girls especially liked the triplets- the 8yo wants to know when we can have triplet babies, LOL!
post #87 of 112
I guess technically it's unethical, and I probably wouldn't do it, but it is so far off my radar as far as "bad" things go that I can't be bothered to get worked up over it.
post #88 of 112
Fairs are usually to make money, and that caused the fair people to lose money. It is the same as stealing. A fair is a business sort of. The purpose is to make money. I don't see a fair as a need for ANY family, so yeah, I call it unethical. If it was a hungry and poor family and it was a buffet restaurant we were talking about, I would see it different, since food is a need and they don't have the money. If someone does not have the money for the fair, they don't get to go, plain and simple. We chose not to go to the local fair when it was here. We did not have the money. It was not a need. Oh well, life goes on and we go for a walk instead. Or, the family could have chosen to limit their childrens riding but still let them ride whatever they could afford so they could have some fun. Yeah, it sucks when you can't have exactly what you want, but such is life.
post #89 of 112
As a small business owner, I'm a bit unsettled by the idea that it's ok because they charge "too much." No one is forcing you to go and spend your money. Besides, without seeing their financial records and business plan, how can you determine what's "too much?"
post #90 of 112
I wouldn't do it and I would refuse if someone offered. IMO it is stealing so it is definitely unethical.
post #91 of 112
My gut instinct was to say "unethical but not a huge issue"

However, I went to a festival last month where you had to buy tokens for drinks - no cash. I bought more than I needed, and when I left I gave the tokens to someone coming in. I think they were supposed to be non-transferable, so it was against the rules to give them away. At the time I figured that the tokens were prepayment on a drink - my $4 beer was already bought, I just hadn't redeemed the token to get it from the bar. Thus I was free to give my beer to another festival goer. Kind of like a giftcard.

Question is, is a wristband for unlimited rides all day the same thing? I think it's different but can't quite say why.
post #92 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadBuddy View Post
My gut instinct was to say "unethical but not a huge issue"

However, I went to a festival last month where you had to buy tokens for drinks - no cash. I bought more than I needed, and when I left I gave the tokens to someone coming in. I think they were supposed to be non-transferable, so it was against the rules to give them away. At the time I figured that the tokens were prepayment on a drink - my $4 beer was already bought, I just hadn't redeemed the token to get it from the bar. Thus I was free to give my beer to another festival goer. Kind of like a giftcard.

Question is, is a wristband for unlimited rides all day the same thing? I think it's different but can't quite say why.
I think it's very different. I believe the only reason one isn't supposed to give drink token to others is b/c they check age on IDs when you buy them, so they don't want you to buy tokens for underage friends.
post #93 of 112
As a side note, when I worked as a "carnie," they paid us a whopping $100 a week for full-time work, then proceeded to take out the $9 per shirt for the shirts they required we wear out of our crappy $100. And since most of us were underage runaways or illegal immigrants, no one could do anything about it. So regardless of if you pass on your wristband, the employees still get screwed by the company.
post #94 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandiRhoades View Post
I wouldn't do it, though for different reasons that what I've read here. I'm a writer. As such, my work is intangible, which means people see no problem in stealing it. (We have little respect for intellectual property, but that's another soapbox.) I will not, then, violate someone else's intangible product or service by cheating them out money. I just cannot do it.
What's intangible about a carnival ride?

The difference between intellectual property and a good or service is that, with the latter, costs scale with use. It costs more to run the ferris wheel with a full load than a half-load, I bet. It takes more time to board more people (that time is time running the generators and paying the operator, plus it lowers overall capacity), it probably consumes more power when operating with a higher load, there's more wear and tear, more cleaning requirements, and so on. It takes just as long to write a story whether no one reads it or a million people read it, which is what gets so confusing about IP rights. But this is definitely about tangible services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rani View Post
Hello. technically it is not unethical to me. Breaks their rule? yes...unethical no...your family was leaving. The armband is for the whole day unlimited rides. If two kids were passing back and forth to get on, yes that would be unethical.

But instead..you were done with it and it was good for all day therefore, you paid for that child...do you see?
What's the difference between two children passing the wristband back and forth while both at the carnival, and someone passing the wristband on when leaving the carnival? If only one person is using it at a time, it seems to be the same issue: use by multiple persons allows higher use of that wristband than is expected when the price was set. Two people can go on more rides than one person, simply because eventually, you get bored/tired/have gone on everything and leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunnyflakes View Post
Yes, it is hard to teach your children to follow the rules if you are not following them. Like if people lie about how old their child is- the child knows how old they are, especially when they are around 4ish when how "many" they are is a huge deal to them.
My FIL is big into entitlement, and my DH remembers this happening when he was a kid (I think he was 11 and FIL was trying to pass him off as 9). He found it really embarrassing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadBuddy View Post
Question is, is a wristband for unlimited rides all day the same thing? I think it's different but can't quite say why.
Because there is a one-to-one correspondence between tokens and drinks. The tokens are finite; you'll use them all up at a rate of $4 per beer.

The armband is unlimited; therefore, you can use as much of the rides as you can tolerate or your time allows. There's an assumption when setting prices that typically, a person will be able to stomach between X and Y rides. Two people will generally be able to double that, of course. While there are cases where one person might be capable of using their armband more times than another two people use theirs, a ton of research goes into "all you can eat" pricing decisions. When it's not well thought out, you get Comcast's "Unlimited" internet access cutting off customers for using "too much." But usually, the prices are set such that, if you pool all the armband-holders together, their price per ride averages out to roughly the same as the pay-as-you-go price, with probably a small volume discount (and, since they're not consuming tickets and can board a tiny bit faster, they actually are using fewer resources than ticket-holders).

If the average ride costs $3.50, and an armband costs $25, someone somewhere probably determined that the average person went on about five rides. There's also an awareness that, once you remove the pay-as-you-go element, people will go on more rides, and may be more likely to go on the more costly rides (raising the average price). But two people working serially will be able to go on more rides, especially since they will be more likely to ride the same thing twice.
post #95 of 112
all this talk about the midway makes me think of this song (originally) by Joni Mitchell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAf8BqmhHUw

:
post #96 of 112
Technically yeah, I guess it's unethical but at the same time, I'd probably still do it ... isn't it more unethical of the people to ACCEPT the armbands, knowing that the fair would miss out on it's precious $50? The OP paid her share.
post #97 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironica View Post
What's intangible about a carnival ride?

The difference between intellectual property and a good or service is that, with the latter, costs scale with use. It costs more to run the ferris wheel with a full load than a half-load, I bet. It takes more time to board more people (that time is time running the generators and paying the operator, plus it lowers overall capacity), it probably consumes more power when operating with a higher load, there's more wear and tear, more cleaning requirements, and so on. It takes just as long to write a story whether no one reads it or a million people read it, which is what gets so confusing about IP rights. But this is definitely about tangible services.
You aren't paying for the carnival ride itself. You're paying for the entertainment value of using the carnival ride. It's actually less tangible (if there are degrees) because in my case, if you buy my book, you are paying for the materials used and have a product in your hand at the end.

I'm sure it does cost more to run the ride at full capacity, but the pay for creative services isn't just about the writing, playing the music, sculpting, etc. There's so much more time that goes into intellectual property. I'm paid for each time my words are used - and in most cases must spend time querying a new publication and hammering out contract details - rather than being paid simply for the writing produced at the end. Overall, though, I agree with the precept that what makes IP so complicated is that it's something not understood well. I think that's at play here as well.

When people talk about the "corporation" running the carnival, I'm left to wonder (and enjoy the intellectual pursuit, really) how large the companies running carnivals are. I honestly don't know if we're talking some conglomerate somewhere or just some Joe who's making a (likely decent) income for his family from running a carnival. We have a traveling petting zoo that's at pretty much every regional event. While I often balk at the admission, it's still a family-run operation. They don't make oodles of money from it although from my perspective I don't like to pay so much to let my kids pet llamas. When I think of the expenses of carnivals - travel, hotels, personnel, rental spaces, electricity to run, etc. - I realize that have a lot of overhead that I'd never really considered.
post #98 of 112
Okay now see...I just don't see it the way everyone does here. HOw is it unethical or wrong to continue using the armband all day? I buy the armband to use all day for one person. I leave before the end of the day and give it to another person that is coming in. That armband is still ONLY being used by one person.

I truly don't see the problem. If you are swapping or sharing the armband then yes that is stealing because two people are using the same band.

And my karma is just fine thanks.
post #99 of 112
Thread Starter 
Time of usage is part of why I feel that it was okay to do what I did; I know people who go and let their kids ride for 6 or more hours. Adults, too. My kids rode for just about 2 hours. I think that the armbands had lots more "life" than that.
post #100 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by prothyraia View Post
It's unethical, yeah.

But I'd still do it, and feel good about it.


:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Talk Amongst Ourselves
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › WWYD? State Fair ethics question