A Response...

A friend (I follow her blog and we are also Facebook friends, and I have written to her before and about her before. I never know how to categorize this type of relationship. I think of her as a friend…) wrote this blog post yesterday. At first I was simply going to write a reply to it but it had me thinking all morning so I thought that it became post worthy – Thanks Peggy for this “making me think” moment.

Peggy is an amputee like I am. I first started reading her blog a year ago because it provided a slice of life from a perspective that I enjoyed. She was not an amputee who is also a wife and mother and blogger, she is a productive, intelligent, caring person who happens to be an amputee. And she writes a very good blog about her experiences.

In her post on Wednesday, October 27, 2010, she talks about turning down a discount available to her due to her handicap. She says “I just don't feel comfortable accepting a reduced fare simply because I am an amputee. I am taking up the same amount of room as the bi-legged passengers and I am capable of paying for the fare. I see no reason why I should pay less for the same train ride, and accepting the discount would make me uncomfortable.” Later she adds “I am not against accepting other perks afforded to me because of my disability status. I will park in handicapped parking and I will utilize the "fast pass" at amusement parks to bypass the lines for rides. “

I understand this perspective but thought I wanted to add my own two cents to the topic.

To me this is an economics issue. If I have learned only one thing from reading “Freakonomics” and “SuperFreakonomics” by Dubner & Levitt and several of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, it is that incentive is at the core of economics. The question really is “why would the transit system offer discounts to handicapped people?’ It is not just that they are being nice and treating their customer well. If that were the case, the trains would never be late, always be air conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter and have extra comfortable seats. No, they do it as an incentive to use the service. By the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) laws, there are codes in place that make accessibility mandatory. They have to be there. The lower price then is a strong incentive to use it. The transit department wants to be seen as "user friendly", as caring for their users and this helps in that goal. The same is true for the amusement part being “handicapped friendly” They have to have ramps and hand rails and handicapped bathrooms. To treat someone with a handicap in a special way is an incentive to use the park and to be seen using the park you are being a walking advertisement for their “product”. Peggy mentioned a week or so ago about going to “Pumpkinville” which was not handicapped friendly at all. It was obvious to me when she wrote about it that it was not the type of place that I would want to go to. Her experience was a “disincentive” to say the least. She said she felt she would not return. The “Pumpkinville” loss is not only not getting money for her and her son’s admission as well as any treats and souvenirs that they might have bought but also the negative publicity, both written (in her blog) and implied to the people who might have seen her struggling in the park that day.

Really if you think about it, handicapped parking is an ADA law but the reality is that sufficient parking is an incentive to shop at that store. Even the availability of an in store scooter, is a positive incentive to go there. What about senior discounts? Sure it might be hard to admit to being of the appropriate age, but 10% off on Tuesdays is as good an incentive to eat in a restaurant as is the clam chowder.

My point is that these assists, discounts, special deals are just as good for the owner as the patron. I have no issue with using any and all available to me as I would offer complaints if they were not. I vote with my dollar.