The "everyday folks" the parent refers to--for most of us, (relatively) wealthy people with white-collar jobs living in rich Western societies--constitute some 5% of the world's wealthiest people. Most human beings living today are not in a position to blow $20 (Indian gross income per capita, per World Bank, 2008: $1040/yr) on a perk, let alone a bribe for something as simple as applying for benefits or starting a business. That's where the outrage comes from.
Education is an important part of changing that culture, and they deserve your donation.
Also, poverty in America is not, as far as I can tell, much like poverty in the US, although I've not spent any time in the rough parts of Chicago; like most middle-class white people, I spend most of my time on the north side.
And why exactly would you ascribe a trait or "trend" that you notice in Guelo to the "less well off"? Do you have to be poor to be against bribery - or, rather - tipping for special treatment? Is the only possible motivation to be against the corrupt administration of services jealousy? These are not rhetorical questions.
That 'innocuous' comment has enough social subtext for people of certain viewpoints to find it repulsive. Like, say, a guy running an anti-bribery campaign.
Personally, I don't begrudge people paying more to get better service/food, but extravagant tipping for better service in a situation where people are expecting to be served fairly sends a strong signal: "I am too good for your rules."
Not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.
The question needs to be asked, where does this game get us? Nowhere. All good people are ultimately batting for the same team. Sure, truly evil people should be named and shamed, but that's not what happened in this thread. Guelo picked a fight because he thought he had the right to, and he doesn't. At least, not with Leelin. Hateful dialogue has absolutely zero positive benefit and often hurts the person doing the hating: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067014.
When you see a liberal with hunched shoulders, it is because this issue is bearing heavily on their mind. /s
You're right, of course. Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far, and then only in the short term. The real goal is battling for systemic change, either by fixing the system or boosting the economy to give more people more wealth. Infighting because you disagree on a 0.1%, that doesn't help at all, and is why passion needs a little control from time to time...
Actually, done well, it goes quite far. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11950843
I still agree with your sentiments, of course.
My first thought on seeing the title for the site was that it was a project to try to reduce corruption and bribery. Because I was curious I clicked through to discover more. Nicely designed site, tackling a real social ill which obviously affects the poor more than it does the rich. Must have taken some time to get up and running, and as it's not a profit-driven thing, you'd need to be fairly passionate about what you're in it for.
And then along comes this guy making asinine comments about greasing palms to get the jump on people in queues and other trivial frippery - that he even presumed it was a site that would give those with fat-wallets a few hints at how to snare a few perks is telling.
Given your interpretation of this conversation I doubt you would have donated at all.
Based on my experience, characterizing the poster as having a chip on his shoulder is accurate. I run into this problem all the time when working with those less well off than me and it's a serious problem. It's a significant barrier on communication between otherwise well intentioned people.
Finally, I stand by my characterization of innocuous. There was no harm or offense intended and I'd like to see you argue otherwise. I myself had the same reaction to the title of the submission and it's because of my middle class upbringing. What is importent here is not shaming people for their upbringing but rather to seek an understanding of why people react in different ways.
Second, the word "innocuous" means "harmless", not "not intended to offend".
It's quite obvious that the original comment was not intended to offend anyone. The guy who made it was probably oblivious to its potential offensiveness.
But that doesn't mean it was harmless. He was basically advocating making bribery easier, which is not only offensive to many people (no matter what his intentions were), but could very well make the world worse if people start acting to make what he's advocating a reality.
That said, kudos to your volunteering efforts and donations. More people should follow your example.
1: producing no injury : harmless
2: not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipidWe'll have to agree to disagree, it's not obvious to me whether that guy his a chip - but in fairness I will always side with those less well off rather than those who are more affluent because all other things being equal that is the fair way to balance the inequalities in this world.
It was not innocuous, it was crass and gauche. I was snorting in derision whilst reading it and was very glad and not at all surprised that it was responded to strongly.
Middle class in the US (I presume you're from the US) is far beyond the reach of most of the world, when will you begin to learn this? I'm from Ireland where we as a nation only recently became affluent, maybe this colors things somewhat. Look, I have no issue with you but it's easier to rub shoulders with other people from vastly different backgrounds due to the decentralized open nature of the Net and maybe we should all remember that :)
What I'm requesting actually isn't so different from what the authors of this site ultimately want; more transparency and widespread knowledge of common bribes. Once everything is out in the open, establishments can either explicitly offer the higher priced solution, or the public outcry can be strong enough to put an end to such practices.
For example, I'd be all for a priority queue at the taxi stand for people with real emergencies. I'm a bit more iffy on express lines at Disney World or restaurants, and I'm guessing very few people would approve of an express list for kidney donations.
Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?
Give me a break.
And there's a sign at the side of the road with the speed limit ...
(No, seriously, I've worked in jobs where it's socially acceptable to get tipped. Unless you're a waitress that makes less than a minimum wage, nobody reports tips.)
I know of waiters/waitresses that don't report all of their tips. Do we now say that tipping them is asking them to break the law? Of course not because that's their responsibility, not your's or mine. We're certainly not stopping them.
Just as it's their responsibility to report the income, it's their responsibility to inform the tipper that they cannot accept and, if they want to explain, tell them that it could get them in trouble.
Persistence with that knowledge is unacceptable but that's another matter.
I'm guessing that bypassing social conventions is where most of the outrage comes from. Queueing etiquette is something sacred; defectors face strong social punishment. Seems wrong to have someone taking something that's yours--your place in line--simply by having more money.
But queueing is just a non-monetary rationing system for a slightly scarce resource that most people don't care enough to pay for. It'd be fairer if everyone waiting participated in an auction for places in line, and the proceeds were distributed evenly, but unless you care enough to set that system up I think the moral outrage against people who buy the front position directly from the coordinator(s) of the queue is misplaced.
Fast track tickets allow you to join a separate queue. The number of fast track tickets available are limited so the queues remain very short, and actual boarding of each ride is controlled so it is never dominated by fast track ticket holders.
The fast track ticket prices vary depending on which rides they are usable on, and how many times you can re-use them.
The system seems to work very well. Those who assign a high value to getting on every ride can opt to pay the extra for a more intense day. Those who are happy with the slow pace of a day out with some queueing can still afford the regular priced tickets.
There doesn't seem to be any moral or social stigma attached to those using the fast track system, but I think part of the reason is that it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose.
But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?
Could it be that not everyone can afford to use the system? Is this really fair? And how do you know that it's "perceived as fair"? By whom? How many people who are waiting in the slow line have you surveyed?
I see it as a trade off.
Lets say you are in a queue that is 2 hours long. You are offered the opportunity to half your queue time for £5, and you can pay multiple times to repeatedly half your queuing time as many times as you want. How many times will you pay the £5 for an ever decreasing return?
There is a trade off here between queueing time and cost. Regardless of your available wealth you won't repeat the payment indefinitely. Internally you assign a value to your lost time, and you trade that against the value of the payment you are willing to make.
The balancing point of the trade off depends on your personal circumstances, availability of monetary wealth and your desired goals.
The fast track system builds the same trade off. The more you are willing to pay the more reduction in wait times you can get, but the higher up the scale you go, the smaller the gain becomes, and there are a range of available ticket types that target different goals (Multiple use, certain rides only, single use, booked time slots, etc). Each user can trade off money against queue time to maximise their goals.
It's fair because all of the available options are clearly documented and made available to everyone indiscriminately. The choice is yours to trade money for time.
It's also fair because those who don't assign high value to the trade off are protected in some way. Fast track tickets are limited in quantity, so most people have to queue, there is not a situation where 10% get stuck waiting exponentially longer. 90% have the same queue, and only the 10% who assign the highest value to the trade off can receive the benefits.
Just because some people can't afford something doesn't make it unfair. I can't afford a Ferrari, but that isn't unfair.
"By whom?"
By me. ;-)
Seriously though, while I have witnessed people cutting into lines unfairly and arguments starting in many other situations I have never seen a confrontation due to the fast track ticket system.
(Perhaps this is because it is sanctioned by the organisation so maybe people just grumble silently in this case, who knows)
The correlation between wealth and class is almost 1.0. How can you seriously argue otherwise? This discussion has taken a turn to the bizarre.
A valet parking employee might get 'bribes' from different people to fetch their car first in the queue, such people might be DHH waiting for his custom Zonda HH (and giving the valet a 50), me waiting for my 335i (and giving the valet a 10 dollar bill), or the dude next to me that earns as much as the valet waiting for his Corolla (giving the valet a 5 dollar bill). The catch is that to bribe people with money, you need to have money to 'throw away' so to speak. Any one with sufficient disposable income can bribe a valet, and most that can actually do in some way or another, but how do the car and money less bribe a valet and why should they since they don't have a car anyways?
It is absolutely corruption. There is no question about it.
Sure, the corruption is from a less powerful position, but the morals and outcomes are largely the same: Someone is selling privileges they have no right to sell, and the same mentality is the mentality that allows corruption in public office.
"Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?"
What a terrible example. Tipping occurs at the end of the transaction, and is intended as a reward for good service. If you had to pay the server before getting served, and it decided the level of care and concern you would get, I am quite confident that it would be forcefully abolished by every restaurant immediately.
Since you enter the tip in advance the driver knows it. A bigger tip upfront (yes, you can still tip with cash) gets you a faster pizza, nicer service, and occasionally additional perks like extra sauces, etc.